Zero Point Energy?

[JTM³]

According to some' date=' the Schumann Resonance has increased from 7.8 to about 12 and this is bringing us closer to the 4th dimension. If true, we won't have long to find out about your 'subspace.'

 

Linda[/quote']

 

That was a bit snide methinks...

 

 

Black holes' date=' exploding?

 

That's a new one on me, but then again I'm not much of an astrophycisist....

 

What I have heard of though is hawking radiation, which results in blackholes giving off radiation.... (that's not 100% true in it's wording but'll do)[/quote']

 

The end result I guess...

 

Horsefeathers.

 

Is it just me or can scientists be a bit of a testy crowd???

[Norman Albers]

Witness, in 1977, Dirac calling the success of QED "essentially coincidence". He was fundamentally a mathematician, and was staring at Richard Feynman who no doubt wanted to spit. Here we are again. Love it.

[abskebabs]

Witness, in 1977, Dirac calling the success of QED "essentially coincidence". He was fundamentally a mathematician, and was staring at Richard Feynman who no doubt wanted to spit. Here we are again. Love it.

Feynman admitted himself the theory wasn't mathematically sound:

"But no matter how clever the word, it is what I call a dippy process! Having to resort to such hocus pocus has prevented us from proving that the theory of quantum electrodynamics is mathematically self consistent. I suspect that renormalization is not mathematically legitimate."

[Norman Albers]

" I suspect that renormalization is not mathematically legitimate."

Wow, thank you for this quote from Feynman! He was more mathematically cool than I knew. In describing polarization response we get the mechanism for eliminating the infinities.

[JTM³]

Wow, thank you for this quote from Feynman! He was more mathematically cool than I knew. In describing polarization response we get the mechanism for eliminating the infinities.

 

What's wrong with infinities?? Who doesn't like infinity? Cute little furry things...

 

Buzz Lightyear did

 

LOL:-p

 

Sorry I couldn't help myself...(ok well I could've it just wouldn't have been as much fun )

[Severian]

Feynman admitted himself the theory wasn't mathematically sound:

"But no matter how clever the word' date=' it is what I call a dippy process! Having to resort to such hocus pocus has prevented us from proving that the theory of quantum electrodynamics is mathematically self consistent. I suspect that renormalization is not mathematically legitimate."[/quote']

 

I fundamentally disagree with this point of view. In fact, it is also provably wrong. t'Hooft and Veltman have proven that QED is a consistant renormalizable theory, and they won the Nobel Prize for it a few years ago.

 

I suspect this comment from Feynman predates their proof. Any idea when he said it?

[abskebabs]

Feynamnn said this in 1985. I found this information from the following website: http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Richard-Feynman-QED.htm

[abskebabs]

I fundamentally disagree with this point of view. In fact' date=' it is also provably wrong. t'Hooft and Veltman have proven that QED is a consistant renormalizable theory, and they won the Nobel Prize for it a few years ago.

 

I suspect this comment from Feynman predates their proof. Any idea when he said it?[/quote']

What are your opinions on this comment by Feynman?

"Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it."

I think I agree:-p

[Severian]

Sorry, I am being stupid. t'Hooft and Veltman proved renomalizability of Electroweak interactions, not QED. The renormalizability of QED was shown much earlier (by Schwinger?), which makes Feynman's statement even odder.

[abskebabs]

This is what Paul Dirac had to say on the subject.

"I must say that I am very dissatisfied with the situation, because this so called good theory does involve neglecting infinities which appear in its equations, neglecting them in an arbitrary way. This is just not sensible mathematics. Sensible mathematics involves neglecting a quantity when it turns out to be small - not neglecting it just because it is infinitely great and you do not want it!"

[Norman Albers]

Sorry, I am being stupid. t'Hooft and Veltman proved renomalizability of Electroweak interactions, not QED. The renormalizability of QED was shown much earlier (by Schwinger?), which makes Feynman's statement even odder.

Wouldn't it be nice to have further theoretics with no infinite wallpapers? It is exciting to me to see these two masters learning and evolving in their last years! The above quote from Dirac is from his 1977 speech in Florida. Then, later in 1985, Feynman speaks of a "dippy process". I cannot stop laughing.

[Norman Albers]

I fundamentally disagree with this point of view. In fact' date=' it is also provably wrong. t'Hooft and Veltman have proven that QED is a consistant renormalizable theory, and they won the Nobel Prize for it a few years ago.

 

[/quote']

The argument is not over whether renormalization was possible here, but whether or not the whole thing is a 'dippy process'. A Nobel Prize has no bearing on such a question, to my mind.

[Norman Albers]

To clarify my positions, I think that when we achieve a renormalized theory we should appreciate it, as a beginning and not as an end. When we have a theory it is a mistake to think we know everyting. We have started. Search for my thread mentioning "Charlie Chan". The specific challenge I offer is to the identification of the vacuum as a quantized ficticious oscillator. I had hoped to completely banish the last two words but to my chagrin I have not. I do have good reason to say it is a mistake to think it is a necessarily quantized oscillator. There can be no quantization until Nature defines a length or bound state.

[abskebabs]

I'm not sure if this is off the point, but have you heard of Milo Wolff's work on the Wave structure of matter, and what are your opinions on this. It seems to me for whatever reasons the work has been mostly ignored, but perhaps ppl should pay more attention to it. Perhaps going down a different path can get us out of the problems we are facing with current theories like QED. Personally, I don't know, I have a lot more to learn and I am just offering a suggestion.

[Severian]

The argument is not over whether renormalization was possible here, but whether or not the whole thing is a 'dippy process'. A Nobel Prize has no bearing on such a question, to my mind.

 

So what is your objection to renormalization?

[SmallIsPower]

A more apt analogy is using mgh for potential energy, and then using a huge number for h. The table is at 999999 meters, and the floor at 999998 meters. That's a lot of energy, but only 9.8 J/kg are available to you. h isn't the important value. [math]\Delta h[/math'] is.

 

Arthur C. Clarke said that "negative mass" (actually it's negating longer vibrations of the vacuum flux), by pushing four electrons together. Since repulsion increases by the inverse square, and the Casmir effect increases by the inverse fourth power, it seems energy could become available.

[swansont]

Arthur C. Clarke said that "negative mass" (actually it's negating longer vibrations of the vacuum flux), by pushing four electrons together. Since repulsion increases by the inverse square, and the Casmir effect increases by the inverse fourth power, it seems energy could become available.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by ""negative mass" ... by pushing four electrons together. "

 

But, regardless, you have to look at a full cycle to have an engine. The Casimir force exists, but you do at least as much work setting the system up again as you get out of it the first time you take advantage of it.

[Norman Albers]

We have constructed a theory which is devoid of transverse divergence, which is the manifestation of localization. Clearly the theory has successfully distilled the momentum nature of quanta and the rules of interaction, but I feel we have achieved part of the understanding we might. Somehow what I have accomplished, namely a description of how, electrodynamically, there can be a localized (bunched) wave packet, must be combined with the uncertainty of the polarization background which I see as primary. I am feeling my way here, but the mathematics I have speak very clearly. I have nothing against renormalization per se, other than that I think the whole theory is a good first attempt. Generally my mathematical sense is that we do a top-down approach which is appropriate in the Standard Model to get to the patterns of particle resonances. Lederman, in his book, "The God Particle", after trashing theorists throughout, admits in the end that the model gives geometric structure but no clues for the twenty or so constants to be plugged in for the magnitudes of things. Clearly we do not understand essence, here. The only thing disunified around here is us.

[SmallIsPower]

I'm not sure what you mean by ""negative mass" ... by pushing four electrons together. "

 

But' date=' regardless, you have to look at a full cycle to have an engine. The Casimir force exists, but you do at least as much work setting the system up again as you get out of it the first time you take advantage of it.[/quote']

 

Pushing four electrons together in a tetrahedron creates a tiny 3 dinesionsional space, a quantom dot that uses electrons instead of atoms. This space is small enough to exclude the largest oscilliations of the vacuum flux. The summation of all these missing oscillations that are normally part of the vaccum flux create "negative mass".

[Norman Albers]

May I put here a question on Casimir effect? Don't two well polished conducting plates have a strong Van der Waals sort of stiction when brought together, just from mirroring each others charges and fluctuations?

[swansont]

May I put here a question on Casimir effect? Don't two well polished conducting plates have a strong Van der Waals sort of stiction when brought together, just from mirroring each others charges and fluctuations?

 

If they are conducting, they have no charge. The effect can, IIRC, be explained by the mirroring of vacuum fluctuations in QFT.

[Norman Albers]

I think it is not true that locally there is no charge density.

[Norman Albers]

The ideal conductor supports currents but no charge densities, but this is not the case with real materials. There are atomic centers and mobile electrons. Granted, the latter are 'spread' out in their freedom but I can still see atomically local variations in charge density.

[SmallIsPower]

I'm not sure what you mean by ""negative mass" ... by pushing four electrons together. "

 

But, regardless, you have to look at a full cycle to have an engine. The Casimir force exists, but you do at least as much work setting the system up again as you get out of it the first time you take advantage of it.

 

Hmmnn, that normally is the way things work. The force that is required to push electrons together is over conventional distances the inverse square, the Casmir effect is inverse fourth power. Is the force to push it together at small distances inverse squared or fourth???

 

One other possiblity is that negative mass could be used to "launch" something, first out of earth's gravity well, then the sun's, then the Milky Way's. Does the energy of creating this "launch vehicle" always exceed the energy to launch something with it?

[Edtharan]

Due to the Uncertainty principle it states that there are vacuum fluctuations and that these fluctuations can cause particles to appear and then they will annihilate and disappear. IF you could control what they annihilated with, could you then use that to extract energy from the Zero point field?

 

Like this?

 

This device would be very small (the distance between the curved plates would be close to atomic distances). If an electron and positron were created from the vacuum fluctuations they would have some initial velocity.

 

If the movement was towards the back of the device, then the electron would curve in one direction and the positron in the other.

 

The positron would collide with one plate and annihilates an electron there (this returns the energy balance to 0). The electron would then be free to collide with the other plate.

 

So one plate has lost an electron and the other has gained an electron. One plate has a slight positive charge the other a slight negative charge. There exists a potential electrical difference between the plates and so we could use that for power.

 

If the particles were going the other way (towards the front) the curve of the electron and positron in the magnetic field would not allow them to collide with the plates and this would reduce the zero point field in that direction (a bit like the reduction between the Casmir plates due to the exclusion of wavelengths)

 

There is no moving parts, so the system can then repeat this procedure without having to "reset" it. It sets up a "One Way Street" for the fluctuations that produce the charged particles.

 

My question is: Could this work as described and, if it does, is the energy really coming form the vacuum or from somewhere else (like maybe the magnetic field will be reduced by the energy needed to produce the particles).

 

As I am not a scientist, I would like these questions answered as I can not answer them my self.