ZPE_Logo
  
Search        
  Create an account Home  ·  Topics  ·  Downloads  ·  Your Account  ·  Submit News  ·  Top 10  
Mission Statement

Modules
· Home
· Forum
· LATEST COMMENTS
· Special Sections
· SUPPORT ZPEnergy
· Advertising
· AvantGo
· Books
· Downloads
· Events
· Feedback
· Link to us
· Private Messages
· Search
· Stories Archive
· Submit News
· Surveys
· Top 10
· Topics
· Web Links
· Your Account

Who's Online
There are currently, 277 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.

You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here

Events
  • (August 7, 2024 - August 11, 2024) 2024 ExtraOrdinary Technology Conference

  • Hot Links
    Aetherometry

    American Antigravity

    Closeminded Science

    EarthTech

    ECW E-Cat World

    Innoplaza

    Integrity Research Institute

    New Energy Movement

    New Energy Times

    Panacea-BOCAF

    RexResearch

    Science Hobbyist

    T. Bearden Mirror Site

    USPTO

    Want to Know

    Other Info-Sources
    NE News Sites
    AER_Network
    E-Cat World
    NexusNewsfeed ZPE
    NE Discussion Groups
    Energetic Forum
    EMediaPress
    Energy Science Forum
    Free_Energy FB Group
    The KeelyNet Blog
    OverUnity Research
    Sarfatti_Physics
    Tesla Science Foundation (FB)
    Vortex (old Interact)
    Magazine Sites
    Electrifying Times (FB)
    ExtraOrdinary Technology
    IE Magazine
    New Energy Times

    Interesting Links

    Click Here for the DISCLOSURE PROJECT
    SciTech Daily Review
    NEXUS Magazine

    Is Casimir force a ZP force from virtual photons?
    Posted on Monday, October 11, 2004 @ 22:20:16 GMT by vlad

    Science Dr. Jack Sarfatti writes: Unfortunately the physics in this blurb [Nick Cook, Antigravity @ MetroCon 2004] is not accurate. I explain this in detail in my book Super Cosmos. Nick got his physics information from Hal Puthoff and it is incorrect in some fundamental ways.


    Google "Ian Peterson, University of Coventry, UK" Professor Peterson shows that the Casimir force cannot correctly be considered a zero point force at all from virtual photons. What it really is, is a subtle electrostatic force between mutually induced separated charges in neutral atoms on both plates. This means that any energy from any Casimir force nano-device comes strictly from the weak electrostatic energy not from the zero point virtual photon energy. Therefore, in no sense, can one think that the Casimir force can tap vacuum energy. Top physicists like Matt Visser, Cliff Will and Bill Unruh have told me in a face to face meetings at GR 17 in Dublin, Ireland last July 2004 that they do not agree with Hal Puthoff's proposals in this field that are echoed in Nick Cook's statements below and also in the Aviation Week article "To The Stars" and in the now defunct NASA BPP program.

    Hal Puthoff's association of the Casimir force as a zero point force from virtual photons of the free radiation field ignoring the electron-photon coupling is a common misconception found even in textbooks like Peter Milonni's "The Quantum Vacuum." Milonni gives three separate derivations of the parallel plates Casimir force, which from simple dimensional analysis and symmetry, without any specific dynamical physics at all, must be of the form

    Casimir force ~ hcA/d^4

    A = area of the pair of parallel neutral conducting plates
    d = separation between the plates

    You need a specific dynamical model to compute the pure number coefficient of course.

    Milonni's first model is the one cited by Hal and is even in Scientific American. It depends on boundary conditions excluding free radiation oscillators of wavelengths longer than 2d along the direction perpendicular to the parallel plates. One also assumes f = kc that is not true for virtual photons and then simply counts the number of oscillators between the plates and compares them to the number of oscillators outside the plates assuming kc/2 ground state energy per oscillator. To be more precise, Milonni actually computes

    ZPE(d) - ZPE(infinity)

    The attractive, in this case not in all cases, "Casimir force" is then of the above form from taking the negative gradient of the above difference.

    The idea here being that the only physically important observable is the effect of the boundary conditions. Indeed if there is no short-wave cutoff "a", each term in the above difference is infinite and you want to get a finite cut-off independent result from subtracting two infinities. Of course, one does put in a finite cutoff "a" and then takes the limit a -> 0 at the end of the calculation. Invoking various tricks this model does come up with a dimensionless coefficient that is alleged to agree with experiment.

    However, this gives the right answer for the wrong reasons. Ptolemy's epicycles did the same BTW. It's not enough to get the right empirical answer if the reasoning contradicts other parts of battle-tested physics, in this case general relativity.

    If one were to ignore general relativity one can get away with the above bogus argument accepted by people who have not thought deeply about the problem. The problem here is the cosmological constant problem on how to reconcile the theory of gravity with micro-quantum theory. The answer is that you cannot! You need a more general theory called macro-quantum theory to include Einstein's gravity. The bonus is that you also get both dark energy and dark matter popping out in a natural way along with Einstein's 1915 gravity theory in a way that explains why orthodox quantum gravity is not renormalizable.

    Miloni's second argument is using Einstein's 1905 picture of photons carrying momentum hk. Again the problem is that although one gets the correct empirical answer the reasons contradict general relativity! Of course, Milonni's book has no general relativity in it. This second model requires that virtual photons have w = +1/3 when in fact general relativity requires that they have w = -1 where w = pressure/(energy density).

    Puthoff has just published a wrong Casimir force model of Ken Shoulders EVOs that uses this second model with w = +1/3. Ken Shoulders EVOs appear to be hollow charged shells of N electrons held together by a mysterious glue. These EVOs typically are 10^-5 cm to 10^-3 cm across. Naive estimates are unbalanced charges of N ~ 10^13 to 10^17 e from N(h/mc)^2 ~ 4pi(Radius of EVO)^2 assuming flat space geometry. For example,

    1. N10^-22 ~ 10^-9

    N ~ 10^13

    2. N10^-22 ~ 10^-5

    N ~ 10^17

    1 Coulomb is N ~ 10^19

    Two 1 Coulomb charges separated by a meter produce an electrostatic force ~ 1 MILLION TONS!

    One problem with these EVOs is where is the positive charge left behind? Of course they are stuck on nucleons ~ thousands of times more massive than the electrons.

    Of course, if the space of the EVOs is warped from zero point energy density inside the charged shells then N can be a lot smaller and the unbalanced charge problem is not as serious. Indeed, this is what I propose because it also solves the old problem of the stability of the electron as a spatially extended object Bohm hidden variable that appears to shrink down to a point as the resolution of its imaging (scattering) increases at least down to 10^-16 cm.

    Puthoff's Casimir force as a ZPF force solution to this EVO problem is entirely Rube Goldberg and contradicts general relativity from his w = +1/3 assumption as well as other assumptions.

    * Puthoff misunderstood me. I am not trying to explain the Casimir force as a zero point energy induced strong short-range gravity effect from

    I. Guv + /zpfguv = 0 (Exotic vacuum local field equation)

    II. Guv^;v + /zpf^,vguv = 0 (Local conservation of geometrodynamic current densities)

    III. /zpf = a^-2(Overlap Volume)|Higgs Ocean||Control Order Parameter|Cos(Phase difference between Higgs Ocean & Control) (Bohm-Aharonov-Josephson-Berry phase modulation control for practical metric engineering of warp, wormhole and weapon)

    I am saying, in agreement with Ian Peterson, that the observed Casimir force has a mundane explanation as an integrated retarded electrostatic Casimir-Polder force and, therefore, is of no interest to the practical metric engineering of warp, wormhole and weapon. I have never claimed that the force

    ~ hcA/d^4 is from zero point energy at all! Indeed, I claim the opposite of what Puthoff understood me to claim. I claim that under conditions where this Casimir force is measured the zero point virtual photon energy density (and pressure) is ZERO on both sides of each plate! That is no exotic vacuum in the experiments! Any direct gravity effect from exotic vacuum zero point pressure would swamp this weak Casimir force!

    Note that hc ~ e^2 so that hcA/d^4 hides the underlying electrostatic e^2 origin of this force only seen in non-exotic vacuum conditions.

    Finally Milonni has the correct model from integrating the retarded r^-7 force between mutually induced electric dipoles in neutral atoms over the plates.

    Note that the electrostatic force comes from virtual photons in macro-quantum coherent states as shown by Roy Glauber at Harvard in the early 1960's and they are different from the random virtual photons one per oscillator in the oscillator ground state.

    The distinction between real photons with w = +1/3 and virtual zero point photons with w = -1 comes from the structure of Feynman propagators in quantum electrodynamics, which is strictly a special relativity theory that does not permit gravity.

    Without gravity, you can sweep the large zero point energies under the rug and pretend that they are not there. With gravity you cannot. This is the cosmological constant paradox that I think only I have correctly solved. We shall see. You need to use the coherent Higgs Ocean in a novel way to solve the problem. The point for the Casimir force, is that in conditions where it is measured, the actual ZPF virtual photon pressure is zero on both sides of each plate because of the macro-quantun vacuum coherence out of which Einstein's gravity emerges. Therefore, the observed Casimir force must come from Milonni's 3rd model, which is the one Ian Peterson uses.

    Finally Nick's appeal to Feynman in:

    "This phenomenon is general. Every particle in Nature has an amplitude to move backwards in time, and therefore has an anti-particle." - Richard Feynman, "QED"

    Is a completely false clue as I explain in detail in my 3 books. The point is that the w = -1 ZPF does have a direct strong gravity influence that can either be attractive or repulsive depending on THREE factors

    I. The sign of the quantum ZPF pressure

    II The power law distribution of the ZPF.

    III The local intensity of the post-inflationary Higgs Ocean field

    Indeed, these three conditions in different environments explain

    1. The acceleration of the universe seen in Type 1a supernovae anomalous redshifts

    2. Ken Shoulders EVOs

    3. Galactic halo stabilizing the stars in our galaxy

    4. Other dark matter gravity lensing.

    5. Some gamma ray bursts

    6. Deep inelastic electron scattering off protons and neutrons.

    8. Universal Regge slopes of hadronic resonances.

    Last but not least - to raise the hackles of Mainstream Physics Pundits and Pro Skeptics:

    9. Warp, wormhole and weapons seen in the UFO data collected on the NIDS website.

    http://www.nidsci.org/

    On Oct 11, 2004, at 7:23 AM, frank chille wrote:

    FYI!

    From: "art wagner"
    Subject: Nick Cook, Antigravity @ MetroCon 2004
    Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 10:00:37 -0400

    See (http://www.metrocon.org/keynote.htm)

     
    Login
    Nickname

    Password

    Security Code: Security Code
    Type Security Code

    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.

    Related Links
    · More about Science
    · News by vlad


    Most read story about Science:
    100 miles on 4 ounces of water?


    Article Rating
    Average Score: 5
    Votes: 1


    Please take a second and vote for this article:

    Excellent
    Very Good
    Good
    Regular
    Bad


    Options

     Printer Friendly Printer Friendly


    "Is Casimir force a ZP force from virtual photons?" | Login/Create an Account | 5 comments | Search Discussion
    The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

    No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register

    Re: Antigravity @ MetroCon 2004 /Warp, Wormhole & WMD (Score: 1)
    by vlad on Monday, October 11, 2004 @ 22:40:32 GMT
    (User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
    On Oct 10, 2004, at 7:50 PM, Gary S. Bekkum wrote:

    http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0408/0408001.pdf


    Gravitomagnetic Fields in Rotating Superconductors due to Fractal Space-Time

    C. J. de Matos *
    ESA-HQ, European Space Agency, 8-10 rue Mario Nikis, 75015 Paris, France
    M. Tajmar †
    ARC Seibersdorf research GmbH, A-2444 Seibersdorf, Austria

    Abstract

    The gravitomagnetic London moment conjectured from the Cooper pair mass anomaly reported by Tate, is explained and removed by the fractal properties of space-time at quantum scale and the consequences of a maximum cosmic length as discussed in scale relativity. According to our analysis, this anomaly can be expressed in terms of the fine structure constant by 3 ... and fits to the second digit Tate’s measurement, which is remarkable.

    PACS: 04.25.Nx, 04.50.+h, 04.60.-m, 04.80.Cc, 05.45.Df, 74.70.-b Keywords: gravitomagnetism, London moment, fractal space-time, coupling between electromagnetism and gravitation, Cooper pair mass anomaly, superconductivity

    * General Studies Officer, ESA-HQ, DG-X, F-75015 Paris, France, e-mail: clovis.de.matos@esa.int
    † Principal Scientist, Space Propulsion, ARC Seibersdorf research, A-2444 Seibersdorf, Austria,
    e-mail: martin.tajmar@arcs.ac.at

    Jack Sarfatti writes: They do not directly reference Ray Chiao, Modanese, Podkletnov, nor Ning Li, so it seems independent work overlapping them. I have not digested it yet. Burp! ... :-)



    Re: Is Casimir force a ZP force from virtual photons? (Score: 1)
    by kurt9 on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 @ 08:42:12 GMT
    (User Info | Send a Message) http://www.metatechnica.com
    I do not know enough physics and mathematics to be able to make comments on Jack Sarfatti's articles and postings. There are alot of them, especially over in the sci.space netgroup.

    Jack obviously has got a real bug up his arse about Hal Puthoff.

    Hal writes papers on this stuff and Jack continually writes refutations of them saying that Hal is way off base.

    As I say, I have no way of judging whose right or wrong, or if any of this stuff is real. I think experimental results would be useful in adjudicating this debate.



    Re: Is Casimir force a ZP force from virtual photons? (Score: 1)
    by mojo on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 @ 11:41:14 GMT
    (User Info | Send a Message)
    Hi,

    This might be the place to mention this possibility.

    Gravitons can be seen as longitudinal photons without the transverse EM components. They transfer energy/momentum directly. These might also be what virtual photons are.

    The momentum transfer direction is dependent on the direction of an associated spin or torsion field vector.

    mojo



    Zero Point Energy Nick Cook's Keynote, Puthoff update (Score: 1)
    by vlad on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 @ 23:49:23 GMT
    (User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
    Just received a pdf document from Dr. Jack Sarfatti: "Zero Point Energy Nick Cook's Keynote, Puthoff update" (PuthoffCook.pdf - 480 kb). It is available in our Downloads/ZPE related section. Thank you Jack; looking forward to your comments;-).



     

    All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2002-2016 by ZPEnergy. Disclaimer: No content, on or affiliated with ZPEnergy should be construed as or relied upon as investment advice. While every effort is made to ensure that the information contained on ZPEnergy is correct, the operators of ZPEnergy make no warranties as to its accuracy. In all respects visitors should seek independent verification and investment advice.
    Keywords: ZPE, ZPF, Zero Point Energy, Zero Point Fluctuations, ZPEnergy, New Energy Technology, Small Scale Implementation, Energy Storage Technology, Space-Energy, Space Energy, Natural Potential, Investors, Investing, Vacuum Energy, Electromagnetic, Over Unity, Overunity, Over-Unity, Free Energy, Free-Energy, Ether, Aether, Cold Fusion, Cold-Fusion, Fuel Cell, Quantum Mechanics, Van der Waals, Casimir, Advanced Physics, Vibrations, Advanced Energy Conversion, Rotational Magnetics, Vortex Mechanics, Rotational Electromagnetics, Earth Electromagnetics, Gyroscopes, Gyroscopic Effects

    PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.