Zero Point Energy

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I like to ask if anyone, especially TVF, has studied ZPE, the Casimir effect and Putchoff's (I hope I spelled it right) theories and what your thoughts are as it related to Gravity, Energy sources and LR.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Puthoff [sic] and colleagues have chosen to take their theory in a different direction. We have had several discussions about the role of the speed of gravity; but so far, these have not had any visible effect. Zero-Point Energy of vacuum energy (the Casimir effect) seems to have more relevance to cosmology than to gravity at the moment.

I'll be on travel again soon, and must keep my responses short for now. -|Tom|-

Makis,

The correct names are rather Haish and Rueda, Puthoff is more like also-run in those matters.
Anyway, it doesn't change the facts of reality. The basic facts are as follows - ZPF is a manifestation of quantum vacuum; quantum vacuum is an entity that must be closely related to "spacetime" or aether of the classic theories; there is a relatively successful and well-developed theory of gravity called GR. It's only logical to propose that ZPF must be somehow related to gravity.
The problem is that modern attempts to marry QTs and GR are made on the premise that both GR and QTs are equally valid theories able to affect the objects of each-other, i.e. that quantum effects may have relativistic corrections and relativistic effects may have quantum corrections. That's a dead-end approach in my bold opinion.
I believe the real question to ponder is not how to marry QTs and GR which is the only well-developed theory of gravity we're now limited to, but rather if that GR theory describes the true real entities of our reality and not the apparitions created by the underlying reality. I.e. - are the space and time really tied up inseparably into a 4D spacetime, or is there a more basic physical medium that lures us into such a logical induction.
The whole situation simply begs for a consistent theory of quantum aether to bridge to a macroscopic 4D spacetime of GR or real space/aether of any other competing theory. If we chose this particular way, we must look for any possible evidence of break-up of spacetime into its probable constituents.
Generalizing my point, I'd say that we need a microscopic theory that would readily derive the macroscopic one as a limit case, and not the other way around. And I believe the first thing to do must be exactly developing a reasonable theory of physical space, and a lot of experimental work must be done in this almost virgin area.

Elsewhere on this BB I expressed an idea that the gravitons don't have to be real particles like other elementary ones, but could be considered as virtual particles - momentum carriers of the quantum vacuum, kind of instantaneous virtual "phonons" of ZPF carrying exclusively the momentum and no real energy. Unfortunately, my ideas go against Tom's model. That must be why such ideas don't get much discussion here.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Unfortunately, my ideas go against Tom's model. That must be why such ideas don't get much discussion here.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

While I shouldn't presume to speak for others, IMO it is not your ideas that don't find favor here (you are obviously very bright and well-informed). I suggest it is your tendency to introduce hypotheses inductively, as "acts of faith", that lacks appeal. My guess is that the people attending this web site were attracted by models that are solidly grounded in first principles and require no such leaps.

So you can't just invoke a mathematical concept and call it a "virtual phonon". For the folks around here, describe its physical properties, not just its mathematical ones. How does "virtual" differ from "real"? How do "phonons" differ from the various proposals for "gravitons" or "aetherons"? What is the experimental motivation for their existence?

So when you call for a microscopic quantum theory of the aether or of gravity, who could disagree? But what is the matter with the ones now on the table (in <i>Pushing Gravity</i>)?

P.S. If it is a problem to obtain this in Russia, drop me an email and I'll make sure you are sent a copy. -|Tom|-

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>While I shouldn't presume to speak for others, IMO it is not your ideas that don't find favor here ... <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>I don't complain of lack of favour. I mean that your own ideas deserve primary attention at your BB. So I don't push my ideas too hard.<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I suggest it is your tendency to introduce hypotheses inductively, as "acts of faith", that lacks appeal. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>Actually, I always start from the experimental evidence available, deduce thereupon and use induction on the final stage. I find it a decent way to do. The real big theories aren't always following this pattern. An example of good modern theory following that paradigm is the Standard Model of particle physics - a very nice theory, btw. A contrary example - M-theory which is pure imagination, yet quite a fun. A worst example of dirty rotten inductive rubbish is clearly the Big Bang.<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>My guess is that the people attending this web site were attracted by models that are solidly grounded in first principles and require no such leaps.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>That's why I'm here. But it doesn't mean that I can agree with all of your models (that I know of).<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>So you can't just invoke a mathematical concept and call it a "virtual phonon".<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>It is not a pure mathematical concept; in fact, the simplest representation of such is by a conjugate pair of virtual photons which work quite nice for electrodynamics, they are instantaneous momentum carriers without specific energy assigned (hence virtual).<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>How do "phonons" differ from the various proposals for "gravitons" or "aetherons"? What is the experimental motivation for their existence?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>The carrier of gravitational force should better have the following properties - be instantaneous, carry no energy through the real space, couple to matter as spin-0 and spin-2 field. Experimental motivation is based upon very real Casimir force, acoustic analog Casimir effect and acoustic analog gravity, apparent instantaneity of gravitational force, induced mass of cavities in superfluid.<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>So when you call for a microscopic quantum theory of the aether or of gravity, who could disagree? But what is the matter with the ones now on the table (in <i>Pushing Gravity</i>)?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>My primary objections to your models are: your gravitons don't fit into whatever (I believe) I know of particle physics, they are also too exotic for GR/QT (not that I'm happy with GR, but QM is okay to me); a separate luminiferous medium is totally unnecessary in my simple models; an infinite scale idea defies the Standard Model of particle physics (the most experimentally-rooted modern theory).<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>P.S. If it is a problem to obtain this in Russia, drop me an email and I'll make sure you are sent a copy.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>I don't believe there's any problem getting books here through Amazon or many other/older services. I don't think that Apeiron does it, though; I didn't check.
Sorry, Tom, I've read too many books in my life. I've got too many ideas of various "brightness" in my head. Now I read only some experimental reports. All the rest I read only when I feel I can't further resist - that is not yet. Hope I didn't offend you in your best feelings.

QM models are as bogus as anything being kicked around here and I really wonder how anyone can presume they are any more than money making devices. They do get a lot of funding from world governments and if that funding dried up most QM models would no longer exist.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>P.S. If it is a problem to obtain this in Russia, drop me an email and I'll make sure you are sent a copy. -|Tom|-<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>While there's no problem obtaining that book in Russia, there's absolutely no way to get a copy signed by the author (OK, one of the authors). No matter if I agree or disagree with the ideas stated in the book, I deeply respect the decency of your personal efforts in the stupidly hostile environment of official science. And I would absolutely love to have such a copy, honest!

P.S. Hope you don't consider it an attempt of extortion<img src=icon_smile_shy.gif border=0 align=middle>