 |
There are currently, 209 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
| |
| |
A Commentary On Vacuum Energy
Posted on Sunday, July 23, 2006 @ 15:24:02 UTC by vlad
|
|
by Mark A. Solis
Energy From The Vacuum: How Much Is There?
Dan Solomon’s recent announcement that there may be energy states below the vacuum state is fairly interesting, if not completely unexpected. (See previous post: Some new results concerning the vacuum in Dirac’s hole theory)
The vacuum energy has been estimated at values ranging from 10^31 Joules per cubic centimeter to 10^120 Joules per cubic centimeter. Any way you look at it, there is a huge amount of energy present.
Heretofore, it appeared that what might be driving devices that draw on vacuum energy (such as the Correa device) was a charge pumping action resulting from the "re-disordering" of ordered fields by the very chaos of the boiling quantum vacuum itself. (This idea, incidentally, has been my own opinion on the matter, based on the manifestation of output on the trailing edges of the high voltage excitation pulses used in Correa's PAGD devices.) This chaos would represent entropy "at the end of the road" as you follow energy (or motivity) in our world down to zero, the vacuum state.
Now, however, Dan Solomon throws a monkey wrench in the works with his discovery that you can extract energy from BELOW the vacuum state. (MORE than 10^120 J/cm^3?) Oh, the implications….
Matrix Dirac: "Let off some steam, Bennett"
For those who saw Schwarzenegger's "Commando," that's a little pun. Nonetheless, it is a relevant pun. Allow me to explain:
Dirac's Hole Theory of the vacuum is part and parcel of a wave model that reveals an underlying structure to the vacuum which no one ever would have expected to exist IF the vacuum state was the end of the entropic road.
Turns out it's only an intersection….
Consider this quote from the current Wikipedia [re: Dirac Sea]:
"On the other hand, the field formulation does not eliminate all the difficulties raised by the Dirac sea; in particular, the problem of the vacuum possessing infinite energy is not so much resolved as swept under the carpet." (Boldface italics by me.)
The bottom line is that no one wanted to believe that this could be the case. The same thing happened over the positron issue until positrons were shown to exist by Carl Anderson in 1932.
The demonstration that positrons exist tended to force the issue. Again, to quote the current Wikipedia [re: Dirac Sea]:
"The Dirac sea is a theoretical model of the vacuum as an infinite sea of particles possessing negative energy."
There is energy on this side of the vacuum state, and negative energy on the other side. Here, we experience entropy. On the other side, there is negentropy.
The complete structure of the quantum vacuum, then, is a great matrix of sorts (caveat: my description) with energy on this side, negative energy on the other side, and the "vacuum state" (with maximum entropy, and hence maximum negentropy) in the middle---the boiling chaos of the spontaneous emission and annihilation of electron-positron pairs.
Without getting unduly technical about how this translates into available energy---
How much energy can we extract from the quantum vacuum? If we assume a symmetry based on something like Newton's First Law (yes, I know, that's oversimplifying it), then there is at least as much energy below the vacuum state as there is above it.
How much is here?
How powerful was the Big Bang when the universe was created?
It seems safe to say that there is plenty of energy to be had from below the vacuum state. It's only a matter of how far we can reach into the other side. (And that's pretty far.)
To paraphrase the way comedian Jay Leno might put it, "Take all you want. We'll get more."
Good Things Come In Small Packages: A Speculation
One last note of interest is that it seems to me that the more we learn about how to extract vacuum energy, the smaller the space from which we seem to be extracting it.
Consider the previously mentioned energy densities of the quantum vacuum: from 10^31 to 10^120 Joules per cubic centimeter. We are talking whopping energy from a tiny space. And that is from the vacuum state.
Could it be--that the farther we reach into the realm of negenery and negentropy (below the vacuum state), the smaller the physical space involved? And could this mean that an infinitesimal space contains infinite (neg)energy?
If indeed the Dirac Sea truly is an infinte sea of particles of negative energy, then this almost certainly is the case.
Tomorrow's "free energy" device may be nothing more than a ring on your finger--so you won't lose it!
|
| |
|
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: 4.5
Votes: 2
| |
|
|
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
|
Re: A Commentary On Vacuum Energy (Score: 1)
by FDT on Monday, July 24, 2006 @ 13:36:14 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | The Dr. Simhony method, in which the energy term in the equation E=mc² is taken to mean binding energy between the electrons and the positrons, tells us that 1.02MeV is required to liberate an electron positron pair. This however does not tell us anything about the energy which is actually contained in the electron positron medium. It is merely a measure of how far down hill the electrons and positrons already are, when they are in the bound state.
If we adopt the rotating electron positron dipole model for the electric sea,
http://www.wbabin.net/science/tombe.pdf
we can then read more into the significance of the 1.02 Mev, in terms of predicting what energy actually already exists in the electric sea.
Classical orbital mechanics tells us that in order for an object in circular orbit, under an inverse square law, to escape from its orbit, it requires an additional amount of energy equal to the amount of kinetic energy which it already possesses. Hence, under the double helix model, each dipole in the orbiting bound state, already possesses 1.02 MeV of orbital kinetic energy. This translates into about 10^25 Joules per cubic centimeter.
This of course is not the whole story. There is also the potential energy which is theoretically infinite. The conversion of potential energy to kinetic energy involves the formula Q1Q2/r, where Q1 and Q2 are the charge of the electron and positron, and where r is the distance between them in the dipole. In the bound state, they keep a certain equilibrium distance from each other, probably of the order of two femtometers. If a way could be found to cause them to fall closer together, this would release kinetic energy. A total fall ending at r=0, when the electron and positron would coincide, would theoretically release infinite kinetic energy.
There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the electric sea contains an enormous supply of energy. But the question still remains as to what materials we need to interact it with, and at what temperatures, and pressures, and at what strength of magnetization, or polarization etc.
Aleatha has already suggested that the magnetocaloric effect is an example of a situation in which energy is being drawn out of the electric sea in the presence of gadolinium, while the sea is in the magnetized state. Aleatha further suggests that the energy in the sea itself would be constantly replenished. In fact, the overall pressure of the sea would result in an equilibrium which would indeed keep topping up the energy lost to the gadolinium. That situation would sustain until such times as an overall reduction in pressure of the electric sea resulted in some noticeable adverse effects in other walks of life. The speed of light is a function of the pressure of the electric sea, and would be one way of measuring any long term pressure changes in the electric sea.
Yours sincerely, David Tombe |
Re: Re: A Commentary On Vacuum Energy (Score: 1)
by MAS on Monday, July 24, 2006 @ 16:10:37 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) ) | I should like to point out that under the Bergman particle model (SRT),
http://www.commonsensescience.org/
there might be some question as to the form of particles in the Dirac sea.
Whether electron-positron pairs as described even exist at the level of the
vacuum state is a matter of conjecture, at least in my opinion. (Oh, it's
a great model, but is it actually the case?)
And BELOW the vacuum state? I think we're just shooting in the dark
at this point. (No dark matter jokes, please.)
Perhaps a good, solid empirical answer to this question might shed some
light on whether present methods of analysis of the vacuum are even on
the right track in the first place.
Present energy calculations are all over the map. This is the first I have
heard of anything as low as 10^25 J/ccm (although the further comments
are duly noted). I've seen numerous differing estimates of the vacuum
energy. Assumptions differ. Methods differ.
With a proper qualitative model of the vacuum structure, we will have a
sound basis for calculating the available energy.
---Mark A. Solis
|
]
Re: Re: Re: A Commentary On Vacuum Energy (Score: 1)
by FDT on Monday, July 24, 2006 @ 16:35:20 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) ) | Mark,
The definitive proof for the existence of an electron positron medium lies in Maxwell's displacement current. A dipolar particulate medium is essential for the propagation of electromagnetic radiation. The particles must be on a scale of magnitude many times smaller than atomic and molecular matter. Even though all the fundamental forces can be predicted by the hydrodynamics of an aethereal fluid, we still need an electron positron dielectric medium to account for displacement current and electromagnetic radiation.
Dr. Simhony has provided totally independent evidence for the existence of an electron positron medium. His evidence comes from the field of solid state physics, but his discovery does not automatically link up the electron positron medium with electromagnetism.
yours sincerely, David Tombe |
]
Re: Re: Re: A Commentary On Vacuum Energy (Score: 1)
by MAS on Friday, July 28, 2006 @ 11:04:55 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) ) | Regarding your comment, to wit:
"The definitive proof for the existence of an electron positron medium
lies in Maxwell's displacement current. A dipolar particulate medium is
essential for the propagation of electromagnetic radiation."
The existence of the displacement current is not an issue. EXACTLY
WHAT IT IS is an issue.
Most accepted definitions of the displacement current do not even grant
it to be the result of moving charge, but only "equivalent to it." Some
state explicitly that no charge is moving.
I therefore see some difficulty with your claim that "a dipolar particulate
medium is essential for the propagation of electromagnetic radiation."
Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. It's nothing but a totem for something
nobody's ever actually SEEN (i.e., observed directly, or in such a way
that what is actually happening is understood totally and unequivocally;
of course, that doesn't keep the totem from being the prevailing view;
we see the force, which is there; we measure it; we perform our various
calculations and write our equations, which work as designed; and we
ascribe the observed action to a model; the model is most often what
has gone wrong).
This is just one example of the kind of thing that bugs me about the
vacuum energy and the way we "understand it" (oh, yeah, right).
I have a lengthy list of other problems with the idea, but I didn't want
to take up the whole page with them....
Thanks for the reply, even so.
---MAS
|
]
|
|
Re: A Commentary On Vacuum Energy (Score: 1)
by nanotech on Monday, July 24, 2006 @ 14:06:44 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | That is very interesting! Thank you Mark Solis.
In the original Green Lantern comic storyline, he met a dying alien who gave him this power ring..which tapped the power of "white holes". Very fascinating....imagine if we could make a zero point energy/electric sea-powered device that can focus the ZP radiation energies to do all sorts of wondrous tasks.
|
|
|
Re: A Commentary On Vacuum Energy (Score: 1)
by Albersawa (Singularities_R_Us) on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 @ 12:08:34 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://laps.noaa.gov/albers/physics/na | | The sine wave applied in Soloman's paper has a unitized frequency called 'm', or electron mass. We work here with 'c' and 'h-bar' equal to one. Putting them back in to get a unitless argument of the sine, it should read: sin(mtc^2/h-bar ). The point is that the frequency is the natural frequency of the electron or something around 10^21. Is this useful? Also I wonder if there is radiation implied by our imposition of the electric field, and would it balance out this negative remainder? I note a very pregnant line in sec.5, which speaks to my questioning of the radiative vacuum: we m;ust allow charge 'q' to be small enough that larger order terms in an expansion don't matter. Then he seems to wiggle around some, saying that really only the product 'qV' appears and has to be small. One could also interpret this in light of my assertion that the vacuum must offer infinitesimal charge response! |
|
|
|
|
