froarty

http://froarty.scienceblog.com/32155/relativistic-interpertation-of-casimir-effect-expanded/

It would certainly explain why M&M were unable to detect ether on the spatial axis if the ether were 90 degrees displaced on the temporal axis. You are describing a modified Lorentzian Ether Theory. From what I have read this is an "equivalent" theory to our present Einsteinian model but the current model has some other advantages which I can't recall.

Found a great citation relative to this thread by Garret Moddel (Dated 30 October 2009) Assessment of proposed electromagnetic quantum vacuum energy extraction methods

Casimir effect varies time supporting Lorentzian Ether Theory By froarty Numerous claims of anomalous heat between atomic hydrogen and catalysts support the “relativistic” hydrogen theory [1]of Jan Naudts. Naudts theory resolved the controversy regarding fractional hydrogen but introduced “relativistic” hydrogen inside a stationary reactor! This is not hydrogen accelerated through space to luminal velocities; this concept requires “equivalent motion” between time and space but unlike the slowing of time by a gravitational mass associated with normal equivalence, this solution accelerates time. When defects or cavities occur in a conductive mass meeting Casimir geometry the opposition to time flow is reversed. The cavity is comparable to a small hole in a large sail that releases the pressure accumulated by the “plates” into an “accelerated” stream many times faster than the isotropic rate outside the cavity. The accelerated stream inside the Casimir cavity relative to the spatial axis places any matter inside the cavity into a different inertial frame relative to matter outside the cavity through “equivalence”. Applying Naudts interpretation to Casimir effect reveals that larger virtual particles are not “displaced” instead the virtual particles are in a different inertial frame and only appear smaller like the fractional hydrogen this theory is based on. The theory dictates a moving time stream like Lorentz Ether theory [2]which is presently less preferred than Special relativity but equally valid mathematically. The conclusion extends Lorentz Ether theory to an ether with a “variable” rate based on mass and Casimir effect. see animation [3], It is my position that Time only becomes isotropic inside matter at the mesoscopic scale except where it is broken abruptly by Casimir geometry. There is growing reason to consider that Casimir force is based on the same principle as the strong nuclear force. The Puthoff atomic model is kept from decaying by this “etheric motion” and Tesla’s conjecture that the sun consumes more energy than it generates also appears supported by this concept. Time is a "variable" stream of ether that manifests itself as virtual particles when it intersects the spatial axis in the “present”. These virtual particles permeate all atomic and subatomic matter, driving both orbital motion and the stiction we call the strong force in the nucleus. From Wikipedia: Lorentz's initial theory created in 1892 and 1895 was based on a completely motionless ether. It explained the failure of the negative ether drift experiments to first order in v/c by introducing a auxiliary variable called "local time" for connecting systems at rest and in motion in the ether. In addition, the negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment led to the introduction of the hypothesis of length contraction in 1892. However, other experiments also produced negative results and so Lorentz was forced in 1899 and 1904 to expand his theory to (nearly) all orders in v/c by introducing the Lorentz transformation, and to assume the electromagnetic nature of all forces. Guided by the principle of relativity the theory ("The New Mechanics") was further developed in 1905 by Henri Poincaré, and also by Lorentz in 1909. Poincaré corrected some mistakes of Lorentz's theory, and maintained that also non-electromagnetic forces had to be taken into account. Many aspects of Lorentz's theory were incorporated into special relativity (SR) with the works of Albert Einstein and Hermann Minkowski. Today LET is often treated as some sort of "Lorentzian" or "neo-Lorentzian" interpretation of special relativity. The introduction of length contraction and time dilation for all phenomena in a "preferred" frame of reference (which plays the role of Lorentz's immobile ether), leads to the complete Lorentz transformation. Because of the same mathematical formalism it is not possible to distinguish between LET and SR by experiment. However, in LET the existence of an undetectable ether is assumed and the validity of the relativity principle seems to be only coincidental, which is one reason why SR is commonly preferred over LET. Another important reason for preferring SR is that the new understanding of space and time was also fundamental for the development of general relativity. Links: [1] http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0507193v2 [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory [3] http://www.byzipp.com/scenic2.swf

This thread evolved into this blog "Will 2010 be the year of zero point energy?"

Are you sure the gravitational force is too small? I certainly agree the g force of a single plate is too small or even 2 point charges at that spacing would be too small but do we really know what happens when the gravitational field of both plates merge as the plate spacing approaches zero. Could these weak forces accumulate into a venturii like force between the ambient field outside the plates and a depleted field inside?

The paragraph below is from an Oct 22 blog Vacuum or zero point energy and quantum fluctuations. It states there is a known time dilation associated with quantum fluctuations Did I miss the memo? I have been struggling to convince people that "up-conversion" of longer vacuum fluctuations to shorter wavelength inside a Casimir cavity could be relativistic (as proposed by Jan Naudts) instead of the simple displacement proposed by current theory. As mentioned earlier, according to Einstein’s space-time concepts time is dilated or always "moves" slower in volumes that contain a different energy content than the ones from which they are observed. This means the time dilation associated with quantum fluctuations will be cumulative even though the energy associated with the particle antiparticle pairs is not. Therefore, because of the random nature of these fluctuations we should observe random time dilations in volumes were they occur relative to others throughout the universe. However, this means the velocity of light will not appear to be constant because time would not "move" at constant speed in all volumes. Since the velocity of light is constant in all volumes we must conclude that either quantum fluctuations do not occur or the space-time concepts of Relativity are invalid.

I have considered this question also, according to wikipedia if the virtual particle lasts long enough to actually be measured then it is not really a virtual particle, Yet vacuum fluctuations / virtual particles are said to "up convert" from longer wavelengths to shorter wavelengths as Casimir force increases and then you have papers proposing that lower frequency virtual photons below 2 THZ are more gravitationally active... so are virtual photons measurable but virtual particles not? This leads me to ask if the vacuum fluctuations are actually the underlying fabric of space or just happen to be a group of frequencies that better reflect property changes to this fabric? I believe the "up conversion" of vacuum flux is relativistic based on work by Naudts and Bourgoin which means space time gets curved and all pertubations painted on this fabric will also appear curved (up converted) not just the narrow frequency bad under consideration. This includes the entire electromagnetic spectrum and the orbital wavelengths of atoms diffused inbetween the plates. This is a relativistic interpretation but still begs the question "are these vacuum fluctuations the medium or just another, smaller more represenative resident of the medium?" Regards Fran

Jaffee concludes only that here is no evidence to prove the reality. He does put the big picture together nicely regarding Lifshitz and the fine structure constant. I am a little lost regarding the attention to the fields in close proximity or high v/c. I won't pretend to know how close the plates can get before the local fields break down due to the fine structure constant. My point is the force is dominated by the stationary plates and no matter how high the H1 V/C becomes the effect is too distributed and small to matter - rather it is driven by the changing fields established by the changing topography of the plates when the atoms diffuse through them

I don't follow you but ok lets say a dead non rotating sun in deep space with an observer on the surface and an observer in a central cavity - the gravity cancells for the observer in the center but he has far more gravitatinal vectors regardless of cancellation than the observer on the surface. This should equate to being in a deeper gravitational well and therefore in a slower clock rate compared to the observer on the surface. I am taking the position that dilation is only related to the quanity of vectors and not orientation. Regards Fran

I agree with Sisyphus regarding cancellation but no one has mentioned time dilation vs the surface, the increased vectors represent an increased dilation regardless of cancellation so a person inhabiting the center of a planet would age more slowly than on the surface.

Simple question that I hope is pertinent - from a time perspective would conservation of energy resist matter traveling in reverse from the past into the future in order to allow this retrocausality to initiate?

Thanks, I followed your math and I think I can see it from a resonance - decaying side bands kind of model -I was hoping for a simple billiard ball sort of model but that doesn't really work. I take it the direction k and k' remain fixed because the moving atom is considered a perfect sphere and the energy transmission direction using a coherent source will always trigger the oscillator at the same point in the orbit regardless of the atoms orientation. Regards Fran

My perspective of 4D Space-time is from the future on the time axis intercept looking down on the zero intersect with the 3D spatial axis called the "present". This narrow time interval is not measurable and our only awareness derived by differential measurements. We can only measure accumulated time dilation measured between different inertial frames such as the twin paradox. Our time perception appears based on relative motion between the fabric of time though space which is why C and Bohr radius always appear constant within our inertial frame. I propose that at an atomic level a temporal perspective would show orbitals forming halos of different radii while the vortii extending down to the nucleii gets deeper or more shallow depending on acceleration. This is based on the coffee analogy of Ron Mallet, the faster Ron stirs his coffee the more the radius of the frothy center contracts but the vortex also extend further down into the coffee a proportional amount. Ron suggests we can only see the coffee surface in our 3D world. I am suggesting the radius of the frothy center always appears unchanged just like C remains unchanged between inertial frames because the swirling vortex going down into the coffee changes to keep the volume constant and that our time perception inside the "Present" is based on that volume intersecting our 3D plane. The relative motion remains unchanged when the 3D radius contracts because depth of the vortex extends keeping the intersecting volume constant. This suggests our 4D reality is a narrow ribbon that creates our 3D illusion of reality much like an electron gun traces out a 2d image on a TV screen. From this perspective we exist in an extremely narrow ribbon at the intersect of Future and Past.

Sounds familiar...Haisch replied to my theory (back when I was still trying to use the term relativistic hydrino -an oxymoron) which to paraphrase he said, the process in the Haisch-Moddel paten(http://www.calphysics.org/Patent.html) does not claim to create "hydrinos." We propose a shift in electron orbitals of atoms in a Casimir cavity which they propose to call a Casimir-Lamb shift. Upon emergence from the cavity they believe the atoms revert to their normal state and that are no stable sub-Bohr states, but they propose that in the process energy may be released from the quantum vacuum.

also The Phase and wavelength are easy, the Balmer series defines the wavelength of emission for a particular atom and the phase control is due to the same principal as a "slaved multivibrators" like those which keep your picture horizontally and vertically synchronized on a TV. the free running frequency is just a little slower than transmitted synch pulses such that if a sync pulse is received and fed capacitavely to the feedback circuit that is nearing the threshold trip point anyway -it swamps it over the gate treshold and keeps all the pixels properly alligned. That said, I must admit that I also do not understand how this controls the direction... any help?

I can quote swansort here because it is the same situation... It doesn't matter if you look at it from thermal perspective or believe vacuum fluctuations are able to move plates, the results are the same. Both theories propose a change in frequency ( VUV for thermal vs vacuum flux for Casimir) inside a Casimir cavity that results in the observer seeing more shorter wavelengths of interest. I think Naudts suggestion of a relativistic solution represents a 3rd option that is compatible with both perspectives. The relativistic solution suggests All wavelengths appear up converted because space time itself warps in the cavity. This would make everything look faster from our perspective outside and sidesteps the controversey regarding fractional states.

Bob, I think you are coming to the same argument I had with Thomas Prevenslik. Thomas contends there is no exploitable difference to produce the Casimir force. Nature saw to it that the thermal kT energy in the gap is promptly conserved by higher energy QED induced EM radiation that at VUV levels by the photoelectric effect charges the plates and produces an attractive electrostatic force. but this not the neutal force Casimir was thinking of in 1948. He agree the hydrogen atom will be affected by the closeness of plates because of the QED induced EM radiation that excites its quantum states, but this is not caused by the vacuum energy (sic ZPE) proposed by Black Light Power and Cal Physics.He feels ZPE is a hoax and that Planck should have dismissed the ZPE as unphysical upon his derivation because it allowed energy to diverge at high frequency, but did not. Thomas feels that physics for over 100 years has been misdirected into believing you can get something for nothing.[/i] I don't disagree with his thermal perspective in that it could be equivalent but I do disagree with the assumption that we are getting something for nothing and think the paper by DiFiore et all regarding the Casimir cavity having a gravitational equivalence may represent the energy source allowing both interpretations to be valid. here is my take on it.

My math is weak and I don't want to hijack this thread so I have posted a reply to your 2005 related thread here . It may be possible to discuss "fast" hydrogen (relativistic) in a new thread outside of pseudoscience -it has all the advantages of the hydrino without the fractional state controversy. Fran

Severian, he missed the most rigorous support because the math was not really solving for a fractional state which we know can't exist. I suggest the overlooked relativistic solution Naudts mentions in criticsm of Rathke was exactly what the math was solving for and the fractional values represent scaling between inertial frames, this supports use of K-G because like photons you can now have electrons occupying the same spatial coordinates and states but separated by time. The math is beyond me but A 1996 paper "Cavity QED* " by Zofia Bialynicka-Birula addresses this with the destruction of isotropy inside a cavity and resulting effect on invariance under transformations of the Poincare group which I believe supports the equation selection by Naudts and Bourgoin and also establishes the relativistic nature of their solutions.

my own simple animation and a link to wikipedia that has a good description. - I have followed some of your previous threads circa 05 but arrived on the scene too late. Regards Fran

the paper I cited notes an inconsequential 10E-14 N always opposite in direction to the ambient field outside the cavity This suggests a deceleration or resistance to the ambient field flowing through and around the cavity. The cavity is actually resisting permeation by the field and the calculated force represents the delta in acceleration inside vs outside. The external observer falls faster relative to atoms inside "falling" at a slightly slower rate. It leads to an intriguing concept where you might have equivalent acceleration between two spatially stationary objects where one object is located inside a cavity and the other is outside. But to stay on topic I sort of agree this force would increase temperature even though it is decelerating relative to the external field. the delta in acceleration will accumulate velocity. Regards Fran Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI ran across a thread " Forces Of Motion In 4d, ...are there any?" on another Forum where the author mentions videos of 2D beings called Flatlanders used to describe wormholes etc. His suggestion was to take this flatland and rotate/accelerate it our dimension on the axis that the flatlanders are missing. They could not see the axis but would feel the centripedal force as an unexplainable push or pull. He then poses his question how would we feel a 4th dimension with centripedal acceleration? --------------------------------------------------- I have been considering a related problem and am coming to the conclusion that the relativistic acceleration to of an inertial frame actually RESHAPES the orbitals but onlyfrom a time axis perspective while from the perspective of the observers own frame C and the orbital size always seems constant. My issue was trying to fathom how gas atoms in a casimir cavity could achieve relativistic speeds while obviously confined spatially. I went full circle with fractional quantum states which can not exist but here the math betrayed me since the work by Naudts and Bourgoin was not properly interpreted and seemed to support the concept when it was actually solving for relativistic scaling. I believe that your 4D force of motion is also a vortex like your ref to flatland perspective of 3D. I prefer Professor Mallets analogy to the vortex in a coffee cup, we are only aware of the surface vortex but the trunk extends deeper into the cup as the spinning froth on top forms smaller and faster orbits. since the volume of the "trunk" represents OUR temporal axis it scales our perception of the surface orbital such that it always appears to be Bohr length. As such I think we should consider extending the Puthoff model even though we can't see this temporal axis I believe it is stretching with centripedal acceleration. http://www.byzipp.com/puthoff.jpg Regarding the misinterperted math that I believe has extended the controversey of fractional state quantum numbers when it should hace ended it, below is my interpretation From the perspective of an event horizon just to be absolutely clear -I am not saying the orbital gets smaller except in a relativistic sense. My proposal is that the interpretation should follow Ronald Mallets analogy to the coffee cup above. The atom is unaware the radius reshapes in 4D because the vortex trunk also changes proportionally. This would imply our time sense is proportional to the volume of the trunk to keep us blissfully unaware of changes to time rate Note: ignore misleading ref to hydrino the fractionals are relativistic

I posted here I have heard both sides of the story regarding Casimir theory which I beleive reflect this subject. My impression is that one camp has a problem with physical linkage via vacuum fluctuations and claims Casimir effect can be explained in terms of thermodynamics which creates an imbalance, that induces an electrostatic attraction, that "pulls plates together" . The Casimir theory camp claims the wavelength restriction only allows smaller virtual particles to remain between the plates while the normal population outside "pushes the plates" together due to the pressure imbalance . and received the response I could not fully respond in the thread quoted above without hijacking so will do so here in the appropriate thread..... Yes, if both descriptions are equivalent they make a useful tool for predictions and reinforcing each other, It suggests a thermaldynamic solution would not necessarily deplete heat energy from the cavity (my original fear). If both the Casimir and thermal descriptions are correct then it suggests they also describe a common energy source which would be the "equivalence" boundary the italian researchers proposed. That differential acceleration becomes constant if the plates are braced apart allowing either description to apply. This doesn't resolve my issue with how to describe the acceleration of a gas atom in the cavity but it does give me a new prediction tool.

If they are the same then at least we could compare results and make better predictions based on what makes sense for both conditions. I was originally afraid the thermaldynamics was more limiting than the Casimir theory but perhaps they both can explain the same results and reinforce each other. Best Regards Fran

Sorry, I didn't preview my work, I went back and edited in some periods. Regards Fran