Science > Physics > Cold Fusion , Zero Point Energy, Hal Puthoff & Andrei Sakharov
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Jack Sarfatti" |
| Date: |
18 Jan 2005 02:11:45 PM |
| Object: |
Cold Fusion , Zero Point Energy, Hal Puthoff & Andrei Sakharov |
Hal Puthoff today responded to
In a message dated 1/18/2005 9:01:03 A.M. Central Standard Time,
garysbekkum@hotmail.com writes:
"The immediate issue that must be addressed is a "proof of concept" for
the use of clusters of electron charge held together by the dark
energy, as Rambaut's paper suggests the release of nuclear energy,
perhaps even an electronic nuclear device scaled to catastrophic
thermonuclear energy release. Such a "proof of concept" should also be
considered highly sensitive or even secret given the potential for
proliferation should such concepts come to fruition. This was the
case, as I recall, for the proof of concept of the original fission
device."
"My approach considers Casimir vacuum energy rather than dark energy as
providing the binding force, but the implications are the same. See
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0408114 .
Collegially,
Hal"
This proliferation of Hal's fundamental misunderstanding of the real
problem here by journalists like Nick Cook and others is dangerous. I am
not attacking Hal here. He is not alone in making this error. Clarity of
thinking is my goal here.
The Casimir force is much too weak. FORGET IT! The dark energy is zero
point energy! The zero point energy's electrical effect in the Casimir
force ~ hcA/d^4 is really tapping only the mutual induced electric
dipole energy. The gravity influence of this zero point energy is a
completely different physics from Einstein's
Guv + /\zpfguv ~ 0
on a much more powerful scale.
Hal & Co have completely mis-identified the qualitative nature of the
phenomenon.
On Jan 18, 2005, at 5:01 AM, Paul J. Werbos, Dr. wrote:
Hi, Jack!
....
In the previous email, I gently expressed some worry about your theory
of gravity. If you require that the electron have a radius of 10**-13
cm, and if the scattering data put an upper limit of 10**-18, this
suggests a need either to restructure the model or parameters -- or else
a whole lot of explaining, a lot more than that last email you sent us.
I understand that the mainstream 10**-18 view is not sancrosanct... but
I wouldn't throw it out just on faith or personal authority.
No I am not doing anything of the kind. You (and probably others not
just you :-)) do not understand my really NOVEL basic physical idea
(conjecture) here of MICRO space warping. The "size" of the electron is
not FIXED. It depends on how it is observed. It SHRINKS from variable
space warping that is a function of the momentum transfer of the virtual
photon probe. At low energy of chemistry and atomic physics it is 10^-13
cm with a plasma cloud reaching out to 10^-11 cm. But has you kick it
with higher energy it SHRINKS down to 10^-18 cm! This is explained by
Kip Thorne in his "Black Holes and Space Warps". The ratio of
circumference C to physical Bohm hidden variable radius e^2/mc^2 ~
10^-13 cm shrinks with increasing scattering momentum transfer p. The
effective size of the electron to the virtual photon probe is
(neglecting spin & charge - really need to use A. Burinski's Kerr-Newman
micro-geon model) is roughly
C ~ (1 - (8pi/3)/\zpf(e^2/mc^2)^3(p/h))^1/2(e^2/mc^2)
Note, that to get apparent measured scattering size = 0,
i.e. a "point"
(8pi/3)/\zpf(e^2/mc^2)^3(p/h) = 1
i.e. ~ 10/\zpf 10^-39 10^18 ~ 10^-22/\zpf = 1
/\zpf = (h/mc)^-2 ~ 10^22 cm^-2
That is, we have the beautifully consistent result that the plasma cloud
of virtual electron-positron pairs (e+e-) at h/mc ~ 10^-11 cm is
precisely what is needed to make the electron (also the quark) look like
a "point particle" at scattering momentum transfers p ~ h/10^-18 cm,
where the negative zero point energy density of the virtual e+e- plasma
cloud is ~ (string tension)/\zpf ~ (c^4/G)/\zpf ~ 10^19Gev 1033 cm^-1
10^22 cm^-2 ~ -10^74 ergs/cc. But w = -1, there is equal and opposite
positive quantum pressure. However the gravity influence of the ZPF is
(energy density)(1 + 3w)
So this is
c^4/\zpf = G*(energy density)
10^42 10^22 10^-74 ~ 10^-10 ~ G* ~ G in cgs units.
That is G stays invariant, but the zero point energy density is large
enough to stabilize the extended electron Bohm hidden variable Wheeler
micro-geon "Mass without mass".
But the issue requires some precision in any case. The word "radius" is
actually ambiguous, dangerously so -- and that might be our problem
here. Maybe.
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Cold Fusion , Zero Point Energy, Hal Puthoff & Andrei Sakharov |
18 Jan 2005 02:17:36 PM |
|
|
Post on sci.physics.fusion, that is the cold fusion newsgroup.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Herring" |
|
| Title: Re: Cold Fusion , Zero Point Energy, Hal Puthoff & Andrei Sakharov |
19 Jan 2005 04:56:17 AM |
|
|
In message <1106079456.232815.285860@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
johnwc@patmedia.net writes
Post on sci.physics.fusion, that is the cold fusion newsgroup.
You're new here, aren't you.
Jack only posts, he doesn't listen.
--
Richard Herring
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Sefton" |
|
| Title: Re: Cold Fusion , Zero Point Energy, Hal Puthoff & Andrei Sakharov |
19 Jan 2005 10:21:56 AM |
|
|
Richard Herring wrote:
In message <1106079456.232815.285860@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
johnwc@patmedia.net writes
Post on sci.physics.fusion, that is the cold fusion newsgroup.
You're new here, aren't you.
Jack only posts, he doesn't listen.
This post sounded right on.
Let's say (humor me)the electron is a cloud. It is a flat spiral
within a discoid volume around its proton center.
When a skater pulls in her arms, she speeds her rotation.
Therefore in an excited atom spinning much faster
the electron spirals might be
expected to retract towards the center- 'shrink' like Jack
says.
And I think the vacuum energy is much lower in
frequency than Casimir, perhaps, so whatever.
John
.
|
|
|
| User: "Puppet_Sock" |
|
| Title: Re: Cold Fusion , Zero Point Energy, Hal Puthoff & Andrei Sakharov |
19 Jan 2005 11:29:15 AM |
|
|
John Sefton wrote:
[snip]
Let's say (humor me)the electron is a cloud.
An assertion, and not a very well defined one.
It is a flat spiral
within a discoid volume around its proton center.
Three disparate assertions, none very well defined.
When a skater pulls in her arms, she speeds her rotation.
An unrelated statement, fairly poorly expressed. The skater
is exhibiting conservation of angular momentum.
Therefore in an excited atom spinning much faster
the electron spirals might be
expected to retract towards the center- 'shrink' like Jack
says.
More assertions. An excited atom is not "spinning much
faster" even were you to say faster than what. The shape
of an electron's orbital is in no sense a spiral. When
an atom is in an excited state, the electrons that have
been excited are moved farther away from the centre, not
closer.
And I think the vacuum energy is much lower in
frequency than Casimir, perhaps, so whatever.
There is no characteristic frequency for vacuum energy.
Nor for the Casimir effect.
Your post was a mishmash of non-sequitur, junk, assertions,
and poorly worded analogy to inapt metaphors. Were you
drunk when you posted?
Socks
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Vreeland" |
|
| Title: Re: Cold Fusion , Zero Point Energy, Hal Puthoff & Andrei Sakharov |
21 Jan 2005 05:42:18 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:21:56 -0600, John Sefton
<vegan16@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
Richard Herring wrote:
In message <1106079456.232815.285860@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
johnwc@patmedia.net writes
Post on sci.physics.fusion, that is the cold fusion newsgroup.
You're new here, aren't you.
Jack only posts, he doesn't listen.
This post sounded right on.
Let's say (humor me)the electron is a cloud. It is a flat spiral
within a discoid volume around its proton center.
When a skater pulls in her arms, she speeds her rotation.
Therefore in an excited atom spinning much faster
the electron spirals might be
expected to retract towards the center- 'shrink' like Jack
says.
And I think the vacuum energy is much lower in
frequency than Casimir, perhaps, so whatever.
John
But when a skater pulls in her arms she is not changing her energy.
When an electron orbits closer to the nucleus it may move faster but
it has lost energy.
Jack V (Vreejack)
"Will future ages believe that such stupid bigotry ever existed!"--_Ivanhoe_
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
