**
Sent:** Monday, March 14, 2005
5:14 PM
**Subject:** RE: charges, ZPE,
VSE rachets, and mechanisms
Dave,
Thanks immensely for looking
at the diagram and being sure I
don’t drift off somewhere.
Interestingly, further pursuing the thing last night, the standard notion
of “zero-point energy” (of an observable particle) is that
the fundamental particle, when cooled to absolute zero, still has quantum
mechanical motions ongoing. The prevailing “quick talk” conventional
approach seems to be that,
well, this is what physicists
mean by the “quantum mechanical vacuum”. That
can’t quite be true, because if it were, then that
confuses the nonobservable (therefore virtual state)
vacuum fluctuations as
observable particles with remaining zero point motions. That’s
a logical non sequitur, confusing “massless vacuum-space” with “space
containing mass
at zero degrees”.
So then the conventional question and approach is to point out that,
when one calculates the point
intensity of those “QM motions of the zero-point observable particle”, the
energy density is a function of the cube of the frequency. So that
means that one can integrate
over a range of frequencies to get as big an energy density as one wishes.
So to prevent saying “infinite energy density”, they arrange a “cutoff”
frequency to restrict the range of integration
where by agreement a given calculation
is cut off to yield a finite number. That’s
truncating an infinite series
that __
overall__ sums to zero if
not truncated, but cut off back
where it’s still finite and thus has a finite sum. But that
finite sum can still be very large, and it’s still “respectable” because
of the Casimir discovery and proof that
such energy produces measurable, observable results between two plates,
creating an
attractive force between them
because the energy density between the plates
is less than the energy density outside, hence they are being “shoved”
together by outside “higher pressure” (although they call it an
attractive force between the plates).
The Lamb shift etc. adds additional experimental substance.
And so on. But a physicist can stay “respectable” and speak or work on
“zero point energy” (observable energy) because some real observations
(experiments) are there to support him. In conventional organizations
and schools, however, he __strays__
in the conventional view if he goes on out into the massless vacuum (by
just removing the fundamental charged particle and its ZPE), and points
out that since no measuring
instrument records any actual energy density there, the energy density of
the massless vacuum must be subquantal and thus nonobservable. And then
tries to speak of “extracting energy directly from the virtual state
itself”. At that point the
physics community (peer pressure) comes down on him like a locomotive,
burying him if he’s not careful.
So we did a little gedanken experiment, by combining two things. Take a
fundamental particle, like an electron. Let it be a zero degrees temperature,
so we have the zero point energy going on but nothing else dynamically.
Now since the temperature
cannot “decay” any further (leaving out the question of the meaning of negative
temperature, since there are
experiments where that is the
only way to describe the results), common thermodynamics says no “heat”
(ugh! They mean no emitted observable energy) can come out of that
fundamental particle
at zero degrees.
[Hold in your mind that the
business of “negative temperature”
means temperature and energy
density greater than any
POSITIVE temperature; that’s
a matter to go into much later].
So we just suddenly produce that
fundamental charged particle there, in the zero-point state,
with our instruments set and ready, and we can in fact see the progress
through space of real EM photons (observable) being emitted from that
charge, with the formation and
spreading of the associated
fields and potentials in 3-space
at light speed. In fact, the
darn charged particle DOES emit real photons continually, with no
observable energy input. And so we do have the problem that
either we have just destroyed the entire conservation
of energy law (not likely!), or else there has to be a VIRTUAL STATE
energy input, in some peculiar fashion where coherent integration
of successive virtual energy inputs gets done, producing observable state
photon emission. It also has to be an ITERATIVE process, since the
emission of a photon iterates
again and again, continually, as long as the charge exists.
So okay, I go back to the zero point condition. We hold onto the
thermodynamics prohibition, and accept it. We hold on to the zero point
energy INITIAL situation, but
then make the following observation:
Since there is measurable photon energy coming out of the charge steadily
by actual measurement showing the photons striking the instruments
at various radii, then either
we have to change the “prohibiting” thermodynamics itself, __
or__ we have to uncover some
kind of new and automatic
process that freely adds the
required additional input energy to that
zero point charge (from its environment). To emit observably, that
ZPE charge must be lifted to
at least the next higher
quantum level, abruptly decaying back to ZPE level by the observable
emission. In such case, the charge which was initially
at its lowest possible quantum
state, is moved by this
additional potentialization
(excitation) of the charge to
one more quantum level higher than zero point level. At that
level, charge has broken from its previous zero-point equilibrium state,
and it has been excited one quantum level (also thereby momentarily
changing its temperature) into
disequilibrium. __Now__
the old second law of thermodynamics permits a decay from this SECOND
quantum level back to the initial ZPE level, by emission of an observable
photon.
But once back
at ZPE state
level, the process iterates,
causing another observable photon emission and abrupt decay.
In short, we have a sort of iterative
“ratcheting” effect, profoundly
similar to Feynman’s notions of rachets and racheting. There may be
something profound down that
road, particularly if it can be shown to fit Feynman’s racheting work.
Here one seems to be ratcheting
in the virtual state, driving
the output of the ratchet to
observable level, allowing emission of an observable photon whose energy
component has been “ratcheted
up” from the virtual state
vacuum energy fluctuations.
Since we have (or can perform) instrumental proof of the iterative
and continuing photon emissions, we then conclude that
the new scenario or some similar scenario is absolutely required, if
physics itself is to hold.
So now we look for that
“additional excitation”
mechanism constituting the “rachet” mechanism (hopefully Feynman would
have loved it!)
Well, that diagram I sent you
is apparently that additional ratcheting
excitation mechanism, giving
the negative entropy mechanism
that is necessary to
potentialize that ZPE state
charged particle up to the next higher quantum level, where the second law
cuts in, allows the abrupt decay by emission of a photon (performance of
actual work which means changing the form of the energy – in this case
from virtual state to
observable state). Further,
it’s consistent with the notion of broken symmetry; breaking the symmetry
of the vacuum energy provides for something virtual to become observable,
as remarked by T. D. Lee.
All that thus gives a mechanism
that
at least is consistent with
everything else, and which provides for those measurable emitted photons
that continually come out of that
charge without any measurable energy input.
This then is
at least consistent with
experimental demonstration of
actions apparently from a mechanism that
does allow consistency with all the objections raised against “going that
extra mile” past ZPE state to
see if the subquantal disordered virtual state
fluctuations of the vacuum can
provide the necessary energy source. And
at least it seems that
it can, more strongly every day.
That
at least gives some
consistency. It isn’t absolute proof, of course, but it is a proposed
mechanism that can and I
believe does meet all the criteria required.
If one gets too harsh critiquing, then one brings in the old “single white
crow” fact. A single white crow is sufficient to prove that
not all crows are black. So in the violation
of the old second law of thermodynamics, several white crows are already
known to thermodynamicists and accepted by them. One area is transient
fluctuations (in any statistical
system), and there are theorems and experiments that
confirm it, already in the literature.
Another area is sharp gradients, and it appears that
any charge locally represents a very sharp gradient in the otherwise
normal mass-free vacuum, suggesting that
the source charge ought to be doing some kind of action that
violates the second law of
thermodynamics for the overall process.. As Prigogine and Kondepudi stated,
such strong gradients do violate
the second law, and “not much is known about it, either experimentally or
theoretically”.
Anyway, that’s my thinking on
it to date, so we will draw up
another couple of diagrams for the briefing I’m working on.
Really hope things go well with you, Dave, and one of these days
(hopefully in the near future, as a young post doc working on those
projects with Eitan and the German professor) I’m looking forward to
seeing you authoring some VERY fundamental physics papers, carrying the
old gal of “energy from the vacuum” over the threshold so that
physics gets a new area and lots of new things that
can be done. Such as completely resolving the energy crisis forever. I
really expect to see Dave ******s’ name on the paper that
does that!!!!
Very best wishes,
Tom |