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, 312 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.

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

Events

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

Werbos on point-particle electron - Puthoff-Sarfatti debate
Posted on Tuesday, June 26, 2007 @ 22:52:29 UTC by vlad

Science Ryan wrote: May I ask what/who initiated this latest debate between you [Jack Sarfatti] and Hal [Puthoff] concerning ZPE?

Jack Sarfatti [JS]: Sure, Michael Ibison and Eric Davis who work for Hal. This is the way physics should work of course. We are debating some key technical issues with deep implications. It's obvious from the URLs that Hal has his ZPE outside Ken Shoulders's charge clusters pressing radially inward mechanically just like in the flat Casimir plates. The classical electron is simply the tiniest charge cluster of course as a Bohm hidden variable. Hal says no ZPE inside the cluster shell - or relatively little compared to outside. That is a QED effect not a gravity effect! I say the opposite is true! I have the ZPE inside the charge clusters sucking the charge radially inward from strong ZPE-induced gravity! DeWitt is doing an interior gravity calculation that fits my picture and contradicts Hal's! Hal has cited DeWitt out of context. It's really evidence for what I propose. I need w = +1/3 for virtual photons INSIDE the charged shell! I also have virtual electron-positron pairs inside the shell cluster. Hal never discusses them.


How it started: RAY HUDSON wrote: ...The most interesting to me (not surprising given my flight controls bias) is the gyroscopic effect of a spinning mass where rotation provides a “stiffness” that permits attitude maintenance with respect to some inertial reference. Ergo, rotation leads to stability, and stability is a result of converting the otherwise chaotic effects in the universe into something orderly (and therefore easier to perceive).
------------------
Paul J. Werbos, Dr. [PJW] wrote: Stability is indeed the central issue here.

In order to get past the description of particles as perfect points (with infinite energy of self-repulsion due to charge being all in one point), the obvious alternative is to describe them as stable "lumps" of force... "solitons," in physics-talk...
----------------------
[JS]: You know I have solved this problem in the frame work of Bohm's objective nonlocal pilot wave-Hidden Variable (HV) ontological picture of quantum theory. CFD (Counter Factual Definiteness) is absent here completely - it's a rather obscure notion to begin with in the Copenhagen type interpretations with literal "collapse" for particle theory. See my book Super Cosmos. My solution came out of my debate with Hal Puthoff on Ken Shoulders's "charge clusters."

OK imagine a hollow thin spherical shell of electric charge e of rest mass m that is rotating with spin J of radius a. We use Galilean relativity i.e. v/c << 1, though we can use 1905 SR later with the gamma factor.

The unstable self-Coulomb repulsive potential energy is ~ +e^2/r. We are in the rotating non-inertial rest frame of the charged shell. Therefore, the effective rotational potential energy is ~ +J^2/mr^2.

This total classical potential is unstable repulsive. OK zero point energy comes to rescue! That's what Lorentz, Abraham & Becker and Poincare did not have back ~ 1900. We have an inner core of negative zero point energy ZPE density ~ Λzpf with positive quantum pressure. This will strongly gravitate according to Einstein's 1916 GR. It is the attractive glue for stability. Furthermore the effective Sakharov ZPE induced gravity is so strong that the electron looks like a "point particle" to Ibison's AFO from the extreme micro-space warping! Same for quarks of course explaining deep inelastic electron scattering off protons etc... [read the math at: SarfattiScienceSeminars Yahoo group].
-------------------
[PJW]: ...But stability is not so easy to achieve. All known stable solitons require "topological charge" of some kind. (See Makhankov et al, The Skyrme Model, or Rajaraman, Solitons and Instantons.) They end up having to have rotation... i.e. spin coupled to isospin.

This is the start of a very important story -- but only the start.

Best of luck to us all ... Paul
--------------------
Hal Puthoff [HP]: I just published a paper in May issue of Int. Jour. Theor. Phys. that gets around the infinite energy/self repulsion problem of a point-particle electron - see attached.
--------------
[JS]: Here is the difference between my model and Hal's - at least his earlier one that I discuss in my book Super Cosmos. It's the difference between a photographic print and its negative. Hal does not, or did not a few years ago, believe that uniform zero point energy has any effect. He is wrong as proved by the discovery of dark energy accelerating the universe.

Consider a shell of charge. Hal has no zero point energy inside with positive pressure zero point energy outside such that Λzpf ~ 1/(Compton wavelength)^2. Hal relies on MECHANICAL PRESSURE to hold the charge in. However his universe could not exist. It violates Einstein's GR.

I have the zero point energy inside with very little outside. It's strong short range gravity attraction G* ~ 10^40G that sucks the charge in in my my model where I also have Λzpf ~ 1/(Compton wavelength)^2.

Or that was it some time ago unless he changed it. I have not yet looked at his latest paper.
------------------
[HP]: In a message ...sarfatti@ writes: "... his electron is way too big and does not explain why the electron looks point-like ~ 10^-16 cm when his scale is ~ 10^-11 cm."

My paper is about a POINT particle. What you say has nothing to do with my publication.
------------------
[PJW]: On a preliminary look at the Puthoff paper, it seems to be essentially parallel in spirit to today's regularization. The underlying theory is defined to be the limit as something goes to zero of a family of... "scaffolding models"... which we are urged not to take seriously. Like the Pauli-Villars potential, or fractional dimension models.

This cannot really explain why masses are what they are, for example. It is just another device for inserting an infinity at a point.

If the "scaffolding models" made more sense for FINITE radius, I would be a lot more comfortable with them. Also, if they came with either a Lagrangian or a rigorous stochastic "dynamic" model which generalizes the old notion of a Lagrangian system. Without well-defined axioms at that level, it involves a certain amount of handwaving.

It's not as if the mainstream alternatives today made any sense either. But if no one learns to do better... no one will have warp drive, for openers.

But after yesterday's Senate vote, maybe we won't have cars either.
(Please forgive me if mood is less constructive than usual... but images of a billion dead bodies are hard not to react to.)

Best of luck to us all,

Paul
------------------
[JS]: 1. I have clearly explained what is wrong with Hal's basic idea. His ambient zero point energy density outside the electron is 78 powers of ten larger than is possible for our universe to exist. Hal does not accept Einstein's GR that even a uniform zero point energy "bends" spacetime. Hal does not believe in the equivalence principle, nor does he accept that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, OR, he is inconsistent since his model violates the latter two mainstream views.

2. I have shown the basic physics of warp drive and we see actual warp drive vehicles in our skies.
---------------
[HP]: Your 78 POWERS OF 10 is the difference between the cosmological vacuum of empty space, and the regularized vacuum applicable to a problem in particle physics where topology matters.  Read my previous response.  As I said before:
 
When you cite w = -1 it is clear that you are talking about vacuum energy, as in cosmology.  Irrelevant.  We are talking particle physics here, Jack, not cosmology.
 
Specifically, when one talks about EM zero-point fluctuations interacting with EM boundaries, it's a horse of a different color, a different vacuum state. 
 
Read B. DeWitt, "Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime," Physics Letters C, vol. 19, pp. 295-357 (1975), specifically p. 305, Eq. (31) ff.  To quote: "This (stress energy tensor T) has exactly the same form as the stress tensor of a photon gas at rest (zero total 3-momentum) in the chosen frame."
 
In short, topology matters.  The stress tensor for interaction with the EM vacuum fluctuations must be regularized when dealing with EM boundary conditions.  The stress tensor for an empty vacuum that applies to cosmology is not applicable to the particle problem.
 
Hal
....................

Read the rest of this thread ( Re Werbos on point-particle electron  - Puthoff solution in IJTP) at SarfattiScienceSeminars Yahoo Group

 
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: 0
Votes: 0

Please take a second and vote for this article:

Excellent
Very Good
Good
Regular
Bad


Options

 Printer Friendly Printer Friendly


"Werbos on point-particle electron - Puthoff-Sarfatti debate" | Login/Create an Account | 0 comments
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register

 

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.