**Andrew Michrowski** (P.A.C.E.) writes: *Example from Nikola Tesla's successful magnifying transmitter - magnitude of zero-point energy - postulation with Planck's equation*

We submit that the interaction between EMF activities and its derivation have been duly approached by **Nikola Tesla** with his magnifying transmitter, as is postulated in the attached presentation made to the **Rt. Hon. Pierre E. Trudeau** in July 1976 by the late **Andrija **[Henry K.] **Puharich**, physicist, and M.D., and one of the earliest micro technology experts, accompanied by the Hon. Senator **Chesley W. Carter**, on behalf of our learned society, while chair of the Canadian Senate** Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Science**. Puharich was working on this submission with Nobelist Richard Feynman as well as other high-level physicists working with the **United States Government** for weeks prior to this executive-level presentation which was reviewed also by the Parliamentary Library researchers.

Unfortunately, according to evidence presented forthwith, the **US Department of State **forced the **National Research Council of Canada**, twice, to deny both **Canadian Prime Ministers **(Trudeau, and subsequently, **Brian Mulroney**)
furtherance of the development of this planetary-scale modality of not
only transmitting - without loss (and hence pollution) but also to
harness supplementary power in the process. This venue would have
resolved the planetary-scale energy crisis that is still at issue and
the collateral climate change factor as early as the 1970's and 1980's.

The
various references to advanced electrodynamics, the 100,000.000 Volt
potential barrier, advanced and scalar potentials, to the expressions of
**Alfred-Marie Liénard** and **Emil Wiechert**, **Paul Dirac**, **Ludwig Valentin Lorentz**, **Louis de Broglie** - as well as **Max Planck** - are, we feel, helpful in addressing this engineering between electromagnetism and other universal resources.

Much
progress has been achieved in advanced electrodynamics that may help to
elucidate, articulate and clarify the postulations of Dr. Puharich,
enabling furtherance towards the implementation of clean energy.

[Vlad] The paper is available in our Downloads/ZPE related section.

------------------------

**Andrew Michrowski** writes: Any thoughts on this view of ZPE?...

From: goldenuniverse

Subject: ANTI--THESIS

------------------

**Vlad**/ZPEnergy writes:

Andrew, the most eloquent comments on the few attempts of
explaining ZPE using QED and general relativity I found in one of
Professor's G. Jordan Maclay writtings ("A few general comments on
vacuum energy"). Here are some relevant quotes below:

start quote:

** Meaning of Zero-Point Fluctuations**
"... If you have a hot body in equilibrium with its surroundings, it is radiating
and reabsorbing photons (quantized bundles of electromagnetic radiation) of all
wavelengths. The energy of a photon of frequency f is Planck's constant h times
the frequency hf . The energy distribution of these photons is given by the
Planck blackbody equation. If you imagine cooling the body and surroundings to
absolute zero, you would find that a temperature independent electromagnetic
field remained. This electromagnetic field, which is always present even if no
matter or charged particles are present and the temperature is absolute zero,
represents the lowest state of the electromagnetic field. The
corresponding fluctuating electromagnetic field is called the zero-point (ZP)
field of the electromagnetic field. The presence of this zero-point field is
predicted by QED (Quantum Electrodynamics). QED is the most precise physical
theory we have; its predictions have been verified to 1 part in 10 billion!
The zero-point field is the "ground state" of the electromagnetic
field. In this ground state, the equations indicate that no ordinary
physical photons are present, yet electromagnetic energy is present. The energy
for a given frequency is ½ hf , one half of the usual energy of a photon.
Sometimes the zero-point field is described as consisting of "virtual"
or very short-lived photons, that appear and disappear before it is possible to
detect them. The presence of zero-point fluctuations has been verified
experimentally with very accurate measurements of the Lamb Shift, other atomic
energy level shifts, the magnetic moment of the electron, and the Casimir force.
QED predicts that the number of ZP quanta (½ hf ) of frequency f is
proportional to the square of the frequency. This gives an energy density for
the vacuum that goes as the cube of the frequency.

Special relativity requires that any observer going through space cannot tell
how fast she is going in an absolute sense. Thus the zero-point fluctuations
must look the same, independent of her velocity as she travels through space.
Therefore the Doppler shifted frequency spectrum must look the same as the
unshifted frequency spectrum. This requirement of special relativity results in
an energy density of the zero-point fluctuations identical to that predicted by
QED, namely an energy density proportional to the cube of the frequency. Summing
over all the frequencies present, gives a total energy density in the vacuum of
which is proportional to 1/L^4
where L is the shortest wavelength of the ZP fluctuations allowed. If we take L
as zero, then we obtain an infinite energy. Applying quantum principles to
general relativity (geometrodynamics) suggests that at lengths shorter than the
Planck length (10^-35 m), the nature of space-time fluctuates, and
therefore no meaning can be ascribed to a length shorter than the Planck length.
Thus we could use the Planck length as a cutoff.

The energy density of the ZP fluctuations in empty space (according to QED)
is about 10^114 joules/cubic meter if we use the Planck length (10^-35
m) as a cut-off.

**General Relativity and Vacuum Energy**

In general relativity, any form of energy has an equivalent mass, given by E =
mc^2, and is therefore coupled to gravity. This enormous zero-point
energy density is equivalent to a mass density of about 10^92 kg/cc,
and would be expected to cause an enormous gravitational field. This large field
leads to some major problems with general relativity, such as the collapse of
the universe into a region of space that is about 1 Planck length across. Thus
we have an inconsistency in two very important and well-verified theories, QED
and General Relativity. A brief discussion of this problem is given in the
excellent book "Lorentzian Wormholes" (Springer-Verlag, 1996, p. 82)
by Matt Visser.

As a brief aside, it is amusing to compute the equivalent mass for a region
of the vacuum about the size of a proton, which is approximately a sphere about
10^-13 cm across, using the enormous energy density formally predicted
above. This process yields an equivalent mass of about 10^53
kg. This means the vacuum energy contained within a region of space the
size of a proton is equivalent to a mass of about 10^53 kg. A very
rough estimate of the number of nucleons in the universe is 10^80.
This number is based on the statistical distribution of stars in galaxies and
the number of galaxies. Most of the mass of matter is in nucleons, so the mass
of the universe is roughly the weight of a proton times 10^80 or about
10^53 kg, which is the same as the mass equivalent of the vacuum
energy in a region the size of a proton. Conclusion: A volume the size of a
proton in empty space contains about the same amount of vacuum energy as all the
matter in the entire universe!!!!!

This simple-minded computation is interesting when we think about the big
bang theories, in which ultra dense matter in a small region of space explodes
and develops into all the matter in the known universe. Could it be possible
that the vacuum energy in a small region or space underwent a transformation
into mass? This simple-minded computation does not include other forms of
energy, such as black holes, or gravitational potential energy.

As mentioned above, the enormous density of the vacuum energy appears to
cause severe conceptual problems in general relativity since the energy couples
with gravity. We can reduce the zero-point energy by the use of a larger cutoff
wavelength. One choice for the short wavelength limit is the Compton wavelength
of the proton as suggested by Nobel Laureate physicist Richard Feynman. The
energy density is then reduced to about 10^35 joules/cubic-meter
corresponding to an equivalent mass density of 10^12 kg/cc. To
appreciate the enormity of this number, compare it to the chemical energy of a
fuel, 10^15 joules/cubic meter, to the energy density of matter, 10^20
joules/cubic meter, and to the energy density of a nucleus, 10^30
joules/cubic meter.

This energy density is still very large, but does look better from the
viewpoint of general relativity. However, now the bad news. The use of a cut-off
is actually in conflict with special relativity, because the value of the cutoff
will depend on the velocity of the rest frame of the observer. This would mean
that the vacuum energy density would depend on your relative motion, which is a
violation of special relativity. So again we have an inconsistency between well
verified theories.

A variety of "solutions" have been proposed to resolve the
inconsistencies between general relativity and quantum theory, including the use
of a "renormalized" vacuum energy. In this approach, the vacuum
energy of empty space is set equal to zero, and only changes in vacuum energy,
such as those that occur in Casimir effects, are included in the formulation of
general relativity. Other approaches include supersymmetry (SUSY)
and the use of extra dimensions (Kaluza-Klein theory), and superstrings.
Another approach might lie in a reinterpretation of Mach's principle. In
the spirit of Mach’s principle the mass of an object is interpreted as the
effective gravitational attraction of the object to all the rest of the matter
or energy in the universe. Perhaps the vacuum energy needs to be included
in this formulation. Many think that a new theory of quantum gravity is
needed to resolve these conflicts.

At this time there is no consistent interpretation of the zero-point energy
density in empty space. … It’s an embarrassment to physicists to have such a
conflict between such well verified and accepted theories. In fact it is so
painful, that most physicists don’t even want to think about it…"

end quote.

Regards,

Vlad/ZPEnergy.com