Cold fusion, for real

by **wolf pauli** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 2:48 pm

<a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0606/p25s01-stss.html?s=u">www.csmonitor.com/2005/06...s.html?s=u</a> Coming in out of the cold: Cold fusion, for real By Michelle Thaller "For the last few years, mentioning cold fusion around scientists (myself included) has been a little like mentioning Bigfoot or UFO sightings. "After the 1989 announcement of fusion in a bottle, so to speak, and the subsequent retraction, the whole idea of cold fusion seemed a bit beyond the pale. But that's all about to change. "A very reputable, very careful group of scientists at the University of Los Angeles (Brian Naranjo, Jim Gimzewski, Seth Putterman) has initiated a fusion reaction using a laboratory device that's not much bigger than a breadbox, and works at roughly room temperature. This time, it looks like the real thing. ..."

by **bindare** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 3:29 pm

... from the Economist: ... Their results have been peer-reviewed, and they make no wild claims of surplus energy being produced. Given past excesses, such caution is understandable. And it may indeed be the case that their technique, which involves banging together the nuclei of deuterium atoms (a heavy form of hydrogen) using a tiny crystal in a palm-sized vacuum chamber, will never provide a source of power. The article goes on to explain a little about the technical details: <a href="http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3909490">www.economist.com/science...id=3909490</a>

by **wolf pauli** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 3:59 pm

Thanks bindare, I hadn't seen the Economist piece. I remain skeptical of cold fusion claims (and even thought about putting a question mark at the end of the thread title, but decided against it, as it was the original sub-title of the article); but I'll keep my fingers crossed.

by **slimmouse** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 8:42 pm

Where I get confused about all this "free energy" stuff is not only in the scientific detail, but being more of a historian, in the claims of history itself. I recently read on an article posted on this board, that Nikola Tesla had in fact run a motor car for some distance at some speed using nothing but 2 Pseudo divining rods. This experiment of course being many many years ago. The article went on to speak of Tesla energy Towers - More successful "free energy" experiments which had been backed by Morgan Stanley among others, until they realised the consequences of this for their other Buddies, whereupon the Tower was destroyed on the orders of the sponsors. Truth or Spinternet ? Anyone know more about this ( from a scientific perspective )?

by **bindare** » Sun Jun 12, 2005 3:46 pm

As a gentle introduction to the physics of the unworkable machines, let me strongly recomment: The Museum of Unworkable Devices <a href="http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm">www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm</a> For a more comprehensive look at free energy scams and the like, i also strongly recommend: Eric's History of Perpetual Motion and Free Energy Machines <a href="http://www.phact.org/e/dennis4.html">www.phact.org/e/dennis4.html</a> This has a superb collection of links to keep you busy for months.

by **Starman** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 4:20 pm

Heyia; Some info and links I found, among which is the intriguing suggestion that the apparant puzzling observed/claimed results of cold fusion may be due to an atomic valence-shell application of the Casimir Effect, itself one aspect of the universe's zero point energy ground-state, quantum fluctuation as per the Heisenberg Uncertaintly Principle. (Perhaps I'm a hopeless optimist-romantic poet-dreamer idealist, but I like to 'think' that such a thing as a Heisenberg Principle engine may be possible, perhaps powering interstellar spacecraft if not just dynamos.) There's an awful lot we still don't know about how the universe is put together and 'works' -- not least in having a comprehensive quantum understanding of gravity, or even whether zero-point energy might be tapped to produce useable 'work'. Tesla, a true maverick genius, was not alone in having allegedly discovered and developed amazingly small but durable power-systems that in demonstrations seemingly exceeded then-current common technological capabilities. A lot of these mysterious inventions/devices seemed to involve an aspect of electromagnetism and conversion of stored electic current at incredible, even unbelieveable levels of efficiency. But perhaps, perhaps those batteries were so powerful because they utilized an aspect of Casimir Effect resulting in a 'cold fusion' kind of energy 'kick'? This is esp. noteable because Tesla's particular interest was in harmonics and phase-arrayed amplification, as when he developed frequency-amplifying oscillator-devices (his notorious 'earthquake device') that had the potential to destroy buildings, or when he used the earth's ground to send increasingly higher-frequency power-surges to the other side of the planet, 'boosting' each returning-signal wave of current until he shorted-out the Colorado Springs generators where he was getting his power from (for free -- until this disaster). Apparently, this 'magnifying transmitter' or oscillating transformer, part of his design for a wireless radio-power-telegraph etc. World System (interesting details of his Colorado City experiment at <a href="http://www.frank.germano.com/greatesthack.htm">www.frank.germano.com/greatesthack.htm</a> with historical and technical info on his World System at <a href="http://mysite.verizon.net/vzeoyr81/magtrans.html)created">mysite.verizon.net/vzeoyr...ml)created</a> 130 foot-long sustained lightning-bolts accompanied by thunder heard 22 miles away, and St. Elmos Fire-effects and other bizzare effects like high-voltage/low amp ground-sparks and magnetic anomalies. Could he have developed a storage battery that somehow 'amplified' the supply of 'free' electrons within, as perhaps 'borrowing' spare electrons from the Hydrogen gas-water battery-acid solution, or somehow 'tickling' or provoking the system to provide zero-point 'virtual' electrons, as per what 'seems' to happen in cold fusion experiments? Of course, Tesla had no way to accurately measure what would have occurred on such an atomic-scale, so he may not have had an accurate idea of what actually happened, except to note a truly amazing output of useable power. -- But due to mass-energy equivalence, it would only require the conversion of truly small quantities of actual matter, perhaps equivalent to 'only' several hundred-thousand photons, as in a 'couple' of electrons, for a battery to power a car cross-country or a tugboat for several-days (as apparently was demonstrated -- the tugboat demo was by someone else). Tesla's "Black Box" <<a href="http://www.frank.germano.com/blackbox.htm>">www.frank.germano.com/blackbox.htm></a> In 1931, Tesla took an automobile, with its internal combustion engine removed, installed an AC electric motor, connected the wires from the motor to his "black box," and ran the auto for days...with nothing else hooked up for power. A great period historical article. Very good index with more Tesla links here: <a href="http://www.frank.germano.com/index.htm">www.frank.germano.com/index.htm</a> Tesla Bladeless turbine technology -- development and applications of super-efficient design with many alternative-energy uses -- Commercial self-promo site but a lot of good info, dated circa 1991? <a href="http://www.frank.germano.com/germano.htm">www.frank.germano.com/germano.htm</a> Zero Point Energy <a href="http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html">www.calphysics.org/zpe.html</a> I've seen or read that zero-point energy, that is the lowest energy state of the vacuum's electromagnetic, (and also gravitational and nuclear, claimed by some physicists) potential due to the Heisenberg Uncertaintly Principle, is so great that the total zero-point energy contained in a square centimeter -- if it could be liberated and 'used' to produce work -- could boil all the oceans of the world. --excerpt-- Quantum physics predicts the existence of an underlying sea of zero-point energy at every point in the universe. This is different from the cosmic microwave background and is also referred to as the electromagnetic quantum vacuum since it is the lowest state of otherwise empty space. This energy is so enormous that most physicists believe that even though zero-point energy seems to be an inescapable consequence of elementary quantum theory, it cannot be physically real, and so is subtracted away in calculations. A minority of physicists accept it as real energy which we cannot directly sense since it is the same everywhere, even inside our bodies and measuring devices. From this perspective, the ordinary world of matter and energy is like a foam atop the quantum vacuum sea. It does not matter to a ship how deep the ocean is below it. If the zero-point energy is real, there is the possibility that it can be tapped as a source of power or be harnassed to generate a propulsive force for space travel. . . . CONNECTION TO INERTIA AND GRAVITATION When a passenger in an airplane feels pushed against his seat as the airplane accelerates down the runway, or when a driver feels pushed to the left when her car makes a sharp turn to the right, what is doing the pushing? Since the time of Newton, this has been attributed to an innate property of matter called inertia. In 1994 a process was discovered whereby the zero-point fluctuations could be the source of the push one feels when changing speed or direction, both being forms of acceleration. The zero-point fluctuations could be the underlying cause of inertia. If that is the case, then we are actually sensing the zero-point energy with every move we make (see origin of inertia). The principle of equivalence would require an analogous connection for gravitation. Einstein's general relativity successfully accounts for the motions of freely-falling objects on geodesics (the "shortest" distance between two points in curved spacetime), but does not provide a mechanism for generating a gravitational force for objects when they are forced to deviate from geodesic tracks. It has been found that an object undergoing acceleration or one held fixed in a gravitational field would experience the same kind of asymmetric pattern in the zero-point field giving rise to such a reaction force. The weight you measure on a scale would therefore be due to zero-point energy (see gravitation). The possibility that electromagnetic zero-point energy may be involved in the production of inertial and gravitational forces opens the possibility that both inertia and gravitation might someday be controlled and manipulated. This could have a profound impact on propulsion and space travel. ***** Tentative explanation for cold-fusion's quirky results is provided by a variation of the Casimir effect, where a void between plates which excludes small-scale Heisenberg Uncertainty quantum fluctuations while allowing larger scale modes to exert a greater over-all 'push' of the plates together, is substituted by preventing excited atom's electrons from dropping into lower-energy orbits, ie: <a href="http://www.padrak.com/ine/ZPESCIAM.html">www.padrak.com/ine/ZPESCIAM.html</a> --quote-- Demonstrating the existence of zero-point energy is one thing; extracting useful amounts is another. Puthoff's institute, which he likens to a mini Bureau of Standards, has examined about 10 devices over the past 10 years and found nothing workable. One contraption, whose Russian inventor claimed could produce kilowatts of excess heat, supposedly relied on sonoluminescence, the conversion of sound into light. Bombarding water with sound to create air bubbles can, under the right conditions, lead to bubbles that collapse and give off flashes of light. Conventional thinking explains sonoluminescence in terms of a shock wave launched within the collapsing bubble, which heats the interior to a flash point. Following up on the work of the late Nobelist Julian Schwinger, a few workers cite zero-point energy as the cause. Basically, the surface of the bubble is supposed to act as the Casimir force plates; as the bubble shrinks, it starts to exclude the bigger modes of the vacuum energy, which is converted to light. That theory notwithstanding, Puthoff and his colleague Scott Little tested the device and changed the details a number of times but never found excess energy. Puthoff believes atoms, not bubbles, offer a better approach. His idea hinges on an unproved hypothesis: that zeropoint energy is what keeps electrons in an atom orbiting the nucleus. In classical physics, circulating charges like an orbiting electron lose energy through radiation; what keeps the electron zipping around the nucleus is, to Puthoff, zero-point energy that the electron continuously absorbs. (Quantum mechanics as originally formulated simply states that an electron in an atom must have some minimum, ground-state energy.) Physicists have demonstrated that a small enough cavity can suppress the natural inclination of a trapped, excited particle to give up some energy and drop to a lower energy state [see "Cavity Quantum Electrodynamics," by Serge Haroche and Jean-Michel Raimond; SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, April 1993]. Basically, the cavity is so small that it can exclude some of the lower-frequency vacuum fluctuations, which the excited atom needs to emit light and drop to a lower energy level. The cavity in effect controls the vacuum fluctuations. Under the right circumstances, Puthoff reasons, one could effectively manipulate the vacuum so that a new, lower ground state appears. The electron would then drop to the lower ground state--in effect, the atom would become smaller--and give up some energy in the process. "It implies that hydrogen or deuterium injected into cavities might produce excess energy," Puthoff says. This possibility might explain cold-fusion experiments, he notes--in other words, the occasional positive results reported in cold-fusion tests might really be indicators of zero-point energy (rather than, one would assume, wishful thinking). ****** <a href="http://www.ldolphin.org/zpe.html">www.ldolphin.org/zpe.html</a> Further out-there thinking about zero-point energy and its relevance to gravity-waves and black holes; When takng quantum fluctuations of ZPE into consideration, many of the highly unique analysis extending from QED are also accessible via SED (classical, Newtonian physics, ie, Stochastic Electrodynamics) -- although something as apparantly simple as Schroedinger's equations has yet resisted being derived from SED (so QED is not about to become a curiously redundant footnote). Whether zero-point energy may ever provide a practical energy bonanza? --quote-- Those with a practical bent of mind may be left with yet one more unanswered question. Can this emerging Rosetta Stone of physics be used to translate such lofty insights into mundane application? Could the engineer of the future specialize in "vacuum engineering?" Could the energy crisis be solved by harnessing the energies of the zero-point sea? After all, since the basic zero-point energy form is highly random in nature, and tending towards self-cancellation, if a way could be found to bring order out of chaos, the, because of the highly energetic nature of the vacuum fluctuations, relatively large effects could in principle be produced. Given our relative ignorance at this point, we must fall back on a quote given by Podolny (12) when contemplating this same issue. "It would be just as presumptuous to deny the feasibility of useful application as it would be irresponsible to guarantee such application." Only the future can reveal the ultimate use to which Mankind will put this remaining Fire of the Gods, the quantum fluctuations of empty space. ********* <a href="http://rgrace.org/1/25g1.html">rgrace.org/1/25g1.html</a> John Worrell Keely, a man who was reported to have run machinery with sound harmonics and levitated a 6 ton sphere with the same principles, was reported to have said "the density of space is 960,000 times as dense as steel"). ****

by **antiaristo** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 8:13 pm

Starman, Excellent post, very interesting. Could I air a thought I've had? If it gets shot down, that's fine. I like to learn. Imagine you lived in a 2D world. How would you experience the third dimension? Contemplate a computer screen, with infinite open windows (and no glass). You live in one of those windows. A 3D object passes through the screen, something like a golfball. What do you "see"? Now it seems to me that you would "see" a succesion of "virtual particles" as the fundamental particles of our matter passed through. They might call it "the vacuum", no? You see where I'm going? Tell me, is this old hat or a load of crap?

by **sparkinthedark** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 8:38 pm

I was listening to Professor Emeritus William A. Tiller, of Stanford Univ.’s Dept. of Materials Science on Coast to Coast (yeah) on June 5th. The interview is well worth listening to. The following quote from is from his website <a href="http://www.tiller.org/">www.tiller.org/</a> The Vacuum: Most of the general public hold the idea that the vacuum is not only the absence of physical matter but is also devoid of anything. However, for quantum mechanics and relativity theory to be internally self-consistent, the vacuum level of nature is required to contain an amazingly large inherent energy density. This vacuum energy density is so large that, provided the universe can be treated as “flat” (and present-day astronomers believe it is), the intrinsic energy in mass terms contained within the volume the size of a single hydrogen atom is about one trillion times larger than that contained in all the physical mass of all the planets and all the stars in the entire known cosmos out to a radius of 20 billion light years. This makes the energy stored in physical matter an insignificant whisper compared to that stored in the vacuum and most of the volume interior to all biological molecules can be treated as vacuum. Uncovering the secrets of the vacuum is obviously a very important part of humankind’s future. This means that there is massive untapped energy that Tesla seems to have tapped and also would be Wilhelm Reich's Orgone.

by **bindare** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 11:24 pm

We would make a lot more progress if we stuck to the regularly used meaning of words. A vacuum is "space from which most or all of the air, gas or other material has been removed or is not present". If you want to imbue the word vacuum with additional meanings (such as dealing with energy densities, etc), then tell us before hand or (much preferably) use a different word.

by **Starman** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 5:05 am

Heyia Antiaristo; Your personal thought-question isn't silly at all -- it's a common thought-experiment used as a way to look 'outside the box' when thinking about what it means to live in our 3-D world where the '4th dimension' is essentially hidden, dramatizing the inherant problem of conceptualizing a higher, embedded dimension. The 2-D 'world' example often used as an introduction to the topic is known as 'Flatland' -- take a stroll thru some of the following links below or google 'Flatland' for more/different sites: You'll probably get a better and thorough understanding of the problem of imagining 'extra' dimensions by checking out the links, but I'll try to answer your question re: virtual particles. To the flatscreen-dwellers (us, in your example), the golf-ball isn't a part of our visible local reality, until it moves into and through the 2-D plane of our 'world' -- in which case it would appear as a sudden dot, quickly expanding from a point surface to the full size of its circumfrance (all the while, we only 'see' a given slice of this mysteriously-appearing alien object), which quickly shrinks to a point-source and dissapears. To the screendwellers, us, the golf ball would seem to have magically appeared from nothing and as suddenly disappeared -- with no clue where 'there' would be except for some theoretical thinkers perhaps positing a higher dimension. It's not the same as what is meant by virtual particles that wink into and out-of existence all the time in the quantum vacuum, since virtual particles (as understood in QED) are a kind of invention, the means by which physicists model the properties and processes of matter and energy according to Feynman diagrams. Real particles are those that can be directly or indirectly observed in experiments (or the real world), while virtual particles can't be observed or directly interacted with without changing them. Our 'seeing' indicates that the golf-ball would NOT be composed of virtual particles. As important is that virtual particles are always created in pairs, ie, a particle and its anti-particle. For a golfball to be a virtual particle, there would also have to be a anti-particle golfball. What's critical is that they only exist for incredibly small intervals of time, as particles and anti-particles almost always immediately annihilate each other. Essentially, virtual particles 'trade' off the great improbability of their spontaneous creation by existing for incredibly brief instances. Re: "Small uncertainties in energy can actually live for very long times. Because of the equivalence between matter and energy, these small energy fluctuations can produce matter (particles) which exists for a short time and then disappears." <a href="http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/209/apr14/virtual.html">zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura...rtual.html</a> Under certain conditions, virtual particles CAN create real particles -- as when extremely energetic photons with equivalent energy of a gas at 3 trillion degree K, proton-antiproton pairs can be created. Radiation and atomic decay are effectively accomplished by means of virtual-pair production. Ordinarily, one would expect there to be equal amounts of virtual matter and antimatter partiticles created -- But it seems that for every one billion antimatter particles there are one million and one matter particles created. One way that such excess of matter to antimatter particles may occur is thru what has come to be known as Hawking Radiation. As noteable astrophysicist Stephen Hawking has shown, under certain conditions at the gravity-well threshold of a black hole star, virtual pair anti-particles will be prevented from mutually-annihilating due to a small but appreciable percentage of opposite virtual-pair particle partners being trapped in the black-hole's gravity-well, with an excess of matter particles or antiparticles corresponding pair lying just 'outside' the effective Schwarschilde Radius theshold where the black hole's gravity gradient exceeds the speed of light, eventually accumulating and resulting in the black-hole actually shrinking further and further into nothingness. Some strange, eh? According to QED: "Particle physicists talk about these processes as if the particles exchanged in the intermediate stages of a diagram are actually there, but they are really only part of a quantum probability calculation. It is meaningless to argue whether they are or are not there, as they cannot be observed. Any attempt to observe them changes the outcome of the process." <a href="http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/virtual.html">www2.slac.stanford.edu/vv...rtual.html</a> Some noteable quotes that explain virtual particles further: In the everyday world, energy is always unalterably fixed; the law of energy conservation is a cornerstone of classical physics. But in the quantum microworld, energy can appear and disappear out of nowhere in a spontaneous and unpredictable fashion. (Davies, 1983, 162) The uncertainty principle implies that particles can come into existence for short periods of time even when there is not enough energy to create them. In effect, they are created from uncertainties in energy. One could say that they briefly "borrow" the energy required for their creation, and then, a short time later, they pay the "debt" back and disappear again. Since these particles do not have a permanent existence, they are called virtual particles. (Morris, 1990, 24) Even though we can't see them, we know that these virtual particles are "really there" in empty space because they leave a detectable trace of their activities. One effect of virtual photons, for example, is to produce a tiny shift in the energy levels of atoms. They also cause an equally tiny change in the magnetic moment of electrons. These minute but significant alterations have been very accurately measured using spectroscopic techniques. (Davies, 1994, 32) [Virtual particle pairs] are predicted to have a calculable effect upon the energy levels of atoms. The effect expected is minute - only a change of one part in a billion, but it has been confirmed by experimenters. In 1953 Willis Lamb measured this excited energy state for a hydrogen atom. This is now called the Lamb shift. The energy difference predicted by the effects of the vacuum on atoms is so small that it is only detectable as a transition at microwave frequencies. The precision of microwave measurements is so great that Lamb was able to measure the shift to five significant figures. He subsequently received the Nobel Prize for his work. No doubt remains that virtual particles are really there. (Barrow & Silk, 1993, 65-66) In modern physics, there is no such thing as "nothing." Even in a perfect vacuum, pairs of virtual particles are constantly being created and destroyed. The existence of these particles is no mathematical fiction. Though they cannot be directly observed, the effects they create are quite real. The assumption that they exist leads to predictions that have been confirmed by experiment to a high degree of accuracy. (Morris, 1990, 25) (from: <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html)">www.infidels.org/library/...cuum.html)</a> ** Flatland links: PCDI - The Fourth Dimension The book writes about A. Square and his world, Flatland. You may have already guessed, but Flatland is a 2 dimensional, flat plane and A. Square is a square ... www.progressiveboink.com/archive/thefourthdimension.htm Math Forum - Ask Dr. Math Let's call this world "Flatland." You don't see anything that is outside of this plane. ... Now, we introduce the third dimension into our 2-D world. ... mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/54683.html Sanjeev Seahra's Home Page However, a 3-dimensional being looking down on the 2-dimensional world is able to see ... can appear to change as viewed from the 2-dimensional Flatland ... www.tech.port.ac.uk/staffweb/seahras/ neat_physics/extra_dimensions/fourth_2.htm 4th Dimension Explanation Now a three dimensional creature can exist, in Flatland, only partially; ... First we begin with a point, in the world of dimensions a point, ... geometricalart.com/4th%20Dimension%20Explanation.htm No. 783: Flatland His allegorical world of Flatland is, literally, a 2-dimensional world, Its citizens are flat triangles, squares, higher polygons, and finally perfect ... www.uh.edu/engines/epi783.htm - NOVA | The Elegant Universe | Imagining Other Dimensions | PBS Being two-dimensional, the inhabitants of Flatland appear as lines to one ... Only after the sphere pulls the square out of his two-dimensional world and ... www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/dimensions.html Antimail : How does a four-dimensional world look like? Don't know about 4 dimensional but you can check out the 2 dimensional world and a point's world in the book "Flatland: a romance of many dimensions" ... blogs.msdn.com/adioltean/archive/2005/05/15/417712.aspx flatland@Everything2.com Somewhat abbreviated title of Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions, a 19th century text about living in a world of two dimensions. ... www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=Flatland Flatland Home Maths Behind 1. Maths Behind 2. Flatterland. Andy's World. Flatland ... Flatland is an inspirational book, which opens the mind to dimensional theory. ... people.bath.ac.uk/ma2apn/flathome.html *** Hope this 'helps'! Starman ( ;

by **Starman** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 5:47 pm

Bindare; Oh-my-gosh! You REALLY were puzzled by the discussion of vacuum's zero-point energy? Funny, I understood what was meant immediately by Antiaristo and Sparkinthedark, both by explicit reference and by context, and didn't even have a Planck's length stumble in following their meanings. As per your request they 'adjust' their use of the word, it's evdent your confusion extends from thinking that zero-point energy of vacuum fluctuation is a completely different meaning and use of the word 'vacuum' -- Not so. Zero-point energy is an essential, latent property of the vacuum. There's NO way in which the total 'absence' of virtual-particle activity in any given area of a vaccum would be a true, accurate description of reality. A 'conditional' meaning for vacuum in a given context such as you recommend, would be one in which the potential for zero-point energy particle-pair creation was specifically excluded -- the exact opposite of the clarity and truthfulness you apparently found wanting. Ironically, if you had comprehended the meaning of Teller's quote which Sparkinthedark posted, you'd have understood that zero-point energy doesn't contradict the definition of vacccum you posted. Here's another way of looking at it: <a href="http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/209/apr14/virtual.html">zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura...rtual.html</a> "The vacuum is seething with activity. Particles continuously come into existence and go out of existence all of the time. This property follows directly from the quantum nature of the sub-atomic world." Also: <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html">www.infidels.org/library/...acuum.html</a> "In modern physics, there is no such thing as "nothing." Even in a perfect vacuum, pairs of virtual particles are constantly being created and destroyed. The existence of these particles is no mathematical fiction. Though they cannot be directly observed, the effects they create are quite real. The assumption that they exist leads to predictions that have been confirmed by experiment to a high degree of accuracy." (Morris, 1990, 25) And: <a href="http://www.sumeria.net/free/zpe3.html">www.sumeria.net/free/zpe3.html</a> "The term "zero-point" refers to zero degrees Kelvin which means this energy exists even in the absence of all heat. The energy was interpreted as being INHERENT TO THE FABRIC OF SPACE ITSELF." (emphasis in original) (Moray B. King) Such are the kinds of strange-but-real quirks of the world that Quantum physics have revealed to us. To claim that such more-precise descriptions of the universe of space and time are 'special' or conditional, and invalidate our 'normal' understanding of such terms as 'vacuum', is misleading and just plain wrong. You probably could have found a more-gracious, less contentious way to signal your discomfiture over how vacuum's zero-point energy was discussed. Did you have an off day or something? Also -- who did you mean by 'we' as in 'we would make a lot more progress'? In this instance, progress towards greater understanding wasn't impaired, but arguably enhanced by the opportunity to clarify a misperception. But please, don't presume to speak 'for' me, OK? I'll happily reciprocate. Regrdz; Starman

by **antiaristo** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 7:28 pm

Starman, Thank you. I’ve saved the thread and will work through the links. Perhaps I shouldn’t do this before going through them. Let me try to put my thought experiment again. When the golf ball passes through Flatland, what do we see? Now it is my understanding that matter is mostly empty space. Atoms are made up of a nucleus and electrons appearing and disappearing in the space around the nucleus. So at any point in time our matter is mainly empty space, with little lumps of “stuff” dotted about. Because of the “thinness” of Flatland you could only perceive the golf ball at the sub atomic level, where it is mainly space. Yet as each atom “passes through” we would suddenly “see” the fundamental particles that make up the nucleus (we may never actually “see” the electrons). For a very short time, fundamental particles would appear, and then disappear again as the atom passed through. Does that make sense?

by **wolf pauli** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 9:01 pm

G.W. Leibniz (1646-1716) maintained against Newton and his followers that space is a plenum, and no doubt would have felt vindicated by the (now well-known) findings mentioned by Starman, but certainly would not have described those findings as showing that the 'vacuum' is full of energy, activity, virtual particles, or anything else. As a logician, Leibniz was much too precise about the use of words to affirm anything of the kind. Rather, he would have said that apparently empty space is not really empty, i.e., not really a vacuum but a plenum. In his 1980 Wolfson College Lecture at Oxford, 'Manifest and Hidden Symmetries', C.H. Llewellyn Smith stated that "we live in an asymmetrical environment and cannot see the symmetries of the underlying laws. What is the asymmetrical environment in which we live? It is the vacuum, the state of lowest energy in which nothing seems to happen. You may think that the vacuum is empty but we will see that it is in fact seething with activity and may become asymmetrical." (The Nature of Matter, ed. J.H. Mulvey, Oxford, 1981.) Leibniz no doubt would have approved of the perfectly correct 'nothing seems to happen', but not the misused 'vacuum'. Llewellyn Smith could have taught Leibniz something about quantum phenomena; Leibniz could have taught Llewellyn Smith and his misspeaking colleagues something about serving clarity by calling a plenum a plenum. Admittedly, the tendency of modern physicists to play fast and loose with 'vacuum' is not nearly as deviant as their use of 'color' in quantum 'chromodynamics' or 'flavor' ('strange', 'charmed', etc.) in quantum 'flavor' dynamics (i.e., the electro-weak theory that unites the weak and electromagnetic forces), but the latter usages are so outré as to mislead no one. The much more subtly deviant use of 'vacuum' is a different story. BTW, I can't approve of James Imamura's uncredited appropriation of Llewellyn Smith's expression 'seething with activity' in the passage quoted by Starman. With the exception of Murray Gell-Mann, physicists so rarely get off good ones in English that when they do, they deserve full credit.

Cold fusion, for real

Cold fusion, for real

still no surplus energy ...

Re: still no surplus energy ...

Re: still no surplus energy ...

Re: Truth or Spinternet ?

re: Cold Fusion results based on Zero Point Energy?

A personal thought

WIlliam Tiller

re: vacuum

Re: Question on 2-D perceptions of 3-D phenomena...

re: vacuum

Flatland

re: vacuum

Who is online