-
#2740 by Bob012345 on 17 Nov, 2017 16:59
-
We have Noether's theorem now which is a basis for conservation laws.
In my view, experiments are the basis of conservation laws. Noether's Theorem provides theoretical support for a consistent mathematical structure applied to describe classical physics but any existing or proposed conservation law must be experimentally confirmed before it is 'physics'. Math and physics are intimately related but they are not and never will be the same. Also the theorem does have limits. -
#2741 by wicoe on 17 Nov, 2017 18:35
-
Math and physics are intimately related but they are not and never will be the same. Also the theorem does have limits.
I realize that this is getting into philosophy, but I can't help but notice that this statement is quite arrogant. So far, all successful models of describing nature have been mathematical. Even though there may not be a unified model known yet, it does not mean that it does not exist or that it is not mathematical. Does your statement imply that you believe there are phenomena that will never be explained by a (future) mathematical model? What makes you think that? -
#2742 by dustinthewind on 17 Nov, 2017 18:43
-
Thanks. It seems a static magnetic field say from a bar magnet is ultimately due to ZPF sustaining the electron motion which causes the currents that produce the field and that field continually propagates and is refreshed.
If we considered that the energy contained in the field of typical bar magnet can be on the order of a Joule and most of that is contained within the volume of a sphere around the magnet of one light nanosecond or 30cm, which has to be refreshed each nanosecond or the field disappears, then the power emanating from the magnet is on the order of a GW. That seems untenable.
Ferromagnetism is due to the spin of the electron AND the fact that they can align with the same N-S axis, across large domains within the iron. The amount of reactive power the vacuum contributes to electron spin doesn't change simply because it's part of a magnet. The electron is still in equilibrium with the vacuum, so there is no way to extract work from it. In the end, the magnetic field of a bar magnet doesn't oscillate at observable frequencies, so it can't do any work either.
...
If the ZPF continuously has to support each electron from decaying, it is delivering huge energies to support each electron in the universe to both keep it from decaying and to refresh the continuously departing EM fields emanating from each particle, exactly equal to the energy that would be released if the electrons were allowed to decay or not be a source of fields. So the ZPF does all the work to maintain the universe in that view which you assert is now the standard QED view. If one cannot measure that flux, how is that view falsifiable? Thanks.
I should probably stay out of this discussion, but I'm confused why @WarpTech's theory doesn't better equate to a "spring" that effectively prevents/retards the electron decay. A classical mechanical spring when compressed (and steady state) does not perform work, so why can't ZPF be crudely modeled as a spring for this stabilizing scenario?
In other words, I don't see where @WarpTech's ZPF theory would need to be performing any work to remain compatible with this bar magnet thought experiment.
Thanks,
James
I like your comment. I personally think it can be equated. I picture the nucleolus electric field polarizing the vacuum pairs so the charges are almost real. A trapped charge as it falls in adds energy to this cloud causing a wave function and emission of light to trap the charge. The charge exists as a cloud but via osculation of vacuum pairs.
Increasing the nucleous charge increases polarization increasing the cloud increasing possible orbital shells.
I am not sure this would hold up to scrutiny but seems plausible to me at the moment.
I have thought of the magnetic field as primarily a relativistic thing, however, I think there is something fundamental about the vacuum that is responsible for the Lorentz contraction. I think that gets into the relativistic time travel that is responsible for contraction and speculation about time running backwards/negative-energy for annihilated anti-matter in the vacuum.
The Feynman–Stueckelberg interpretationFurther authors[28][29][30] have used a matter-antimatter gravitational repulsion to explain cosmological observations, but these publications do not address the physical principles of gravitational repulsion.
Is dark matter an illusion created by the gravitational polarization of the quantum vacuum? DS HajdukovicQuoteAssuming that a particle and its antiparticle have the gravitational charge of the opposite sign, the
physical vacuum may be considered as a fluid of virtual gravitational dipoles. Following this hypothesis,
we present the first indications that dark matter may not exist and that the phenomena for which it was
invoked might be explained by the gravitational polarization of the quantum vacuum by the known
baryonic matter.
Model of dark matter and dark energy based on gravitational polarization
L Blanchet, A Le Tiec
Introducing the Dirac-Milne universe. A Benoit-Lévy, G Chardin
I personally think it may be related to David Waite's derivation of a negative mass/ gravity field associated with a particular charge at 34 minutes.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22120.msg1748252#msg1748252
-
#2743 by Bob012345 on 17 Nov, 2017 19:46
-
Math and physics are intimately related but they are not and never will be the same. Also the theorem does have limits.
I realize that this is getting into philosophy, but I can't help but notice that this statement is quite arrogant. So far, all successful models of describing nature have been mathematical. Even though there may not be a unified model known yet, it does not mean that it does not exist or that it is not mathematical. Does your statement imply that you believe there are phenomena that will never be explained by a (future) mathematical model? What makes you think that?
I don't think it's arrogant at all, at least it's not meant to be. Math is a language and describing something in a language is not the thing itself. There are many more words in Greek for the concept of love than in English. The Greek language thus is better at describing the nuances of the concept of love than English. Some languages have no words for certain concepts at all. Would we say a concept can't exist because we have no word to describe it in our language? We can invent new words or new math to describe something but we should be careful when we use the current state of our language or our mathematical structures to assert something cannot exist that we can't yet understand fully or describe in our current paradigms. I think most folks here are open to new ideas not yet fully understood and don't buy the knee jerk reaction to just discount EMDrive working out if hand because "our physics doesn't allow such nonsense".
p.s. I often come across simple physics problems that have two solutions, one is considered physical and the other is deemed unphysical. The physics informs the math while the math can mislead the physics. The ball can't go through the wall. As the regimes become more esoteric, the relationship can become more tenuous and potentially problematic. As people explore regimes that are untestable, they rely on mathematical consistency and 'beauty' to validate ideas. -
#2744 by spupeng7 on 17 Nov, 2017 23:17
-
...
But when it comes to photons, the paradox accepted by academic physics is absurd, embarrassing. The wheel needs to be re-invented because there are better ways to get around. I insist upon it because arguments from authority are not convincing to me.
What paradox?
Well, I find going by the book provides everything I need, including solutions to the EmDrive. I'd prefer to wait and see if one actually violates physical laws before I would attempt to rewrite the book.
Schrodinger's Cat, photon momentum, how many do you want?
The solutions conjured to attempt to reconcile QM with GR are illogical. When they form the fundamental assumptions of a science, they are insulting everyone's intelligence and relying on our credulity.
Physics currently relies upon arguments from authority, plain, bold and in your face without respect. To understand credible results confirming emdrive thrust we will need better mathematical tools than a relativity which ignores Mach, or a particle mechanics which disguises paradox. -
#2745 by meberbs on 18 Nov, 2017 02:36
-
Schrodinger's Cat, photon momentum, how many do you want?
-Schrodinger's cat is simply a misunderstanding of quantum mechanics.
The solutions conjured to attempt to reconcile QM with GR are illogical. When they form the fundamental assumptions of a science, they are insulting everyone's intelligence and relying on our credulity.
-There are no paradoxes related to photon momentum.
-There are no illogical things related to reconciling QM and GR. We have consistent theories (specifically string theory) that unify them, but experimental tests of these theories are beyond current technology.
-None of the things you mentioned are "fundamental assumptions" Some are results, but if you think they are assumptions you need to actually study these fields before criticizing them.
-You are the only one insulting anyone's intelligence here. By denying results that have been experimentally measured (photon momentum) you are effectively making the claim that you are smarter than all of the other scientists on this planet. That is among the most arrogant things you could possibly say. (An alternate interpretation of what you said would be that all scientists on the planet are in a massive conspiracy to falsify the results of experiments for more than a century, with no one ever exposing this despite countless new people being added to the conspiracy every year, while somehow all of modern technology still works. This would be a strong contender for the most ridiculous conspiracy theory ever.)Physics currently relies upon arguments from authority, plain, bold and in your face without respect.
Physics is not based on arguments from authority. There are detailed calculations and experiments behind all of physics. It appears that you do not care about this and only want to criticize scientists.
If you ask nicely with a desire to learn, then you can expect people to share their knowledge. Your post however is among the most disrespectful things I have ever seen.To understand credible results confirming emdrive thrust we will need better mathematical tools than a relativity which ignores Mach, or a particle mechanics which disguises paradox.
First there would have to be actual confirming evidence. Then as a perquisite for forming a theory of how it works, someone would need to first understand the existing physical results that it has to be consistent with. -
#2746 by Mezzenile on 18 Nov, 2017 06:01
-
The great mathematician Alexander Grothendieck himself, who so revolutionized the notion of space, did not think that his favourite subject matter could explain everything. In particular he strongly criticized the reductionist paradigm of nature understanding with its procession of so-called mathematical models for each level of a reality divided into hierarchically stacked strata.Math and physics are intimately related but they are not and never will be the same. Also the theorem does have limits.
I realize that this is getting into philosophy, but I can't help but notice that this statement is quite arrogant. So far, all successful models of describing nature have been mathematical. Even though there may not be a unified model known yet, it does not mean that it does not exist or that it is not mathematical. Does your statement imply that you believe there are phenomena that will never be explained by a (future) mathematical model? What makes you think that? -
#2747 by Bob012345 on 18 Nov, 2017 16:30
-
If you ask nicely with a desire to learn, then you can expect people to share their knowledge. Your post however is among the most disrespectful things I have ever seen.
I see you do have a sense of humor!
-
#2748 by SeeShells on 18 Nov, 2017 17:30
-
This basic video hit most of what we have been discussing here. I don't want to stir the pot, but to add emphasis there is much we don't know and much we simply don't understand yet. We need to keep an open mind.
Shell
The Vacuum Catastrophe | Space Time
-
#2749 by OnlyMe on 18 Nov, 2017 19:43
-
Magnets certainly can do work but what people really mean is if a magnet can be the energy source doing that work of which the answer classically is no. We can invest potential energy into a classical system involving magnets raising the potential energy which is reduced by the magnets then doing work. The myth than magnets call no work comes from the fact that a charged particle traveling in a constant magnetic field only has it's direction changed but not its momentum.
If I understand you, basically you are saying I'm correct regarding all that flux pouring out of a magnet or an electron charge or any EM field source but simply put, that energy can't be measured or used for any gain. If the ZPF continuously has to support each electron from decaying, it is delivering huge energies to support each electron in the universe to both keep it from decaying and to refresh the continuously departing EM fields emanating from each particle, exactly equal to the energy that would be released if the electrons were allowed to decay or not be a source of fields. So the ZPF does all the work to maintain the universe in that view which you assert is now the standard QED view. If one cannot measure that flux, how is that view falsifiable? Thanks.
Electrons don't spiral into the nucleus and disappear. The necessity of the vacuum ZPF is that it preserves the Commutation relations between position and momentum. Without it, atoms would be unstable. So the fact that atoms are not unstable in general, is proof enough for me. However, what your question boils down to is, does the ZPF of minimum energy state really exist or is there an absolute zero energy. All experiments up to now show that we cannot reach absolute zero temperature and that the ZPF is real. See Milonni's book for the complete picture.
WarpTech,
I don’t claim to know an answer to any of the many questions raised by this discussion. I do question, whether the following from your above post, accurately describes reality…, or perhaps is more a statement of the limitations, we experience by the very nature of observation, experiment and measurement...,
”… does the ZPF of minimum energy state really exist or is there an absolute zero energy. All experiments up to now show that we cannot reach absolute zero temperature and that the ZPF is real.…”
The question that keeps coming up for me is that… (setting aside the fact that we cannot as a matter of functional reality ever interact exclusively with the quantum vacuum (QV) or zero point field (ZPF) other than hypothetically, absent very real influences of existing magnetic/electromagnetic and gravitational fields, as well as a real broad spectrum EM background)...; if an absolute zero energy state existed as it relates to the QV and/or ZPF, there may not be any boundary conditions between that state of absolute zero and our “devices” and it is only changes in the boundary conditions or their effects on physical objects, that define our observations and measurement.
I do understand that it is at least in part your contention that it is an interaction between the ground state of the ZPF and the electron field around an atom that results in the fields stability. However, it might be equally argued that the boundary conditions between a charged proton and the surrounding ZPF give rise to the electron field, in the first place.
Stepping back for a moment. Even should the assumed ground state of the QV/ZPF represent the basis for the stability of particle charge and even matter itself, we have no way to know what the half life of say.., “an atom” might be, should the QV/ZPF it is immersed in be reduced to absolute zero.… Unless one assumes perhaps the electron itself is an artifact of an interaction between a charged particle (most commonly a proton) and the surrounding QV/ZPF. But then this, leads toward an almost ether like concept of the role that the QV/ZPF plays in the stability and even ultimately existence of charged particles and matter itself. (However this argument strays from the immediate issue and by its very nature becomes…, complex, to understate the situation.)
The point is or was intended to be, that we would have no way to measure absolute zero anything… at the scales involved, because we would be depending on observing changes in boundary conditions where no boundary conditions may exist.
Ultimately no one can currently answer the question, “… does the ZPF of minimum energy state really exist or is there an absolute zero energy.(?)”, with any certainty. Personally I believe but that is a ways from certainty!
-
#2750 by OnlyMe on 18 Nov, 2017 20:11
-
This basic video hit most of what we have been discussing here. I don't want to stir the pot, but to add emphasis there is much we don't know and much we simply don't understand yet. We need to keep an open mind.
Shell
The Vacuum Catastrophe | Space Time
There is a lot in there ripe for discussion, but just one thing I would question straight off.
While it is certain that at the longer wavelengths there is a degree of smooth transition between wavelengths, as wavelengths become increasingly shorter there is no certain evidence that the same smooth transition occurs. The background potential need only represent wavelengths that can be associated with a physical counterpart. Which would result in gaps in the high frequency short wavelength portions of the background potential..., and corresponding reduce the total ZPE potential. Perhaps not enough to alter the catastrophe issue... And then even if a full smooth background spectrum were to exist, only those potions that could be expected to interact with physical counter parts could have any affect on our reality. Reality, the universe as we know it would be essentially transparent to any background potential without a physical counter part, with which to interact.
-
#2751 by SeeShells on 19 Nov, 2017 14:34
-
Could you be more precise as which portion of the spectrum you're thinking of?This basic video hit most of what we have been discussing here. I don't want to stir the pot, but to add emphasis there is much we don't know and much we simply don't understand yet. We need to keep an open mind.
Shell
The Vacuum Catastrophe | Space Time
There is a lot in there ripe for discussion, but just one thing I would question straight off.
While it is certain that at the longer wavelengths there is a degree of smooth transition between wavelengths, as wavelengths become increasingly shorter there is no certain evidence that the same smooth transition occurs. The background potential need only represent wavelengths that can be associated with a physical counterpart. Which would result in gaps in the high frequency short wavelength portions of the background potential..., and corresponding reduce the total ZPE potential. Perhaps not enough to alter the catastrophe issue... And then even if a full smooth background spectrum were to exist, only those potions that could be expected to interact with physical counter parts could have any affect on our reality. Reality, the universe as we know it would be essentially transparent to any background potential without a physical counter part, with which to interact.
Shell
-
#2752 by Monomorphic on 19 Nov, 2017 19:45
-
Finally completed the beefier heat sink for the 30W amplifier. It is designed so that a phase-change wax can be incorporated in the future if necessary. I need to order a bunch of thermal paste and that should arrive in a couple of days.
-
#2753 by OnlyMe on 19 Nov, 2017 22:44
-
Could you be more precise as which portion of the spectrum you're thinking of?This basic video hit most of what we have been discussing here. I don't want to stir the pot, but to add emphasis there is much we don't know and much we simply don't understand yet. We need to keep an open mind.
Shell
The Vacuum Catastrophe | Space Time
There is a lot in there ripe for discussion, but just one thing I would question straight off.
While it is certain that at the longer wavelengths there is a degree of smooth transition between wavelengths, as wavelengths become increasingly shorter there is no certain evidence that the same smooth transition occurs. The background potential need only represent wavelengths that can be associated with a physical counterpart. Which would result in gaps in the high frequency short wavelength portions of the background potential..., and corresponding reduce the total ZPE potential. Perhaps not enough to alter the catastrophe issue... And then even if a full smooth background spectrum were to exist, only those potions that could be expected to interact with physical counter parts could have any affect on our reality. Reality, the universe as we know it would be essentially transparent to any background potential without a physical counter part, with which to interact.
Shell
The graphic you attached encompasses known detectable frequencies..., what we know. The video was discussing the quantum vacuum QV, zero point energy ZPE and zero point field ZPF and speculations about cutoff frequencies that may or may not exist, but are speculated to reach all of the way down to the Plank scale and Zitterbewegung frequencies associated with fundamental particles, as defined within the context of quantum field theory… That would include an EM background potential at frequencies far beyond even gamma rays.
My point was that we have no evidence that once beyond what we can currently detect, the EM spectrum continues in a smooth transition. I was suggesting that, in effect if it did there would likely be large segments that would not interact with massive particles or objects at all. Matter would be transparent to any frequency that did not resonate with it or its constituent parts.
A gamma ray already penetrates an object (matter composed of atoms/molecules) to varying degrees depending on the composition and density of the massive object. If there are EM components of the QV/ZPF that resonate at the plank scale and/or Zitterbewegung frequencies, it might be that matter as we know it would be largely transparent to it... Wavelenghts and frequencies on that order would seem to interact weakly with matter and even then perhaps only with massive particles etc. naturally resonant at those frequencies. (Weekly meaning only should the involved photon slam right into a particle or field that it resonates with.)
In a way what I was trying to suggest is that, instead of being concerned about a specific cutoff frequency relative to the EM spectrum of ZPE, you would only need to be concerned with wavelengths and frequencies that would resonate with corresponding “existing” particles/objects.
Personally, I favor an approach toward the QV and ZPF more closely associated with SED. That would seem to suggest that the EM spectrum of the QV... would be limited to wavelengths and frequencies associated with physically existing massive particles. I would still contend two things; even from a QED approach where the full EM spectrum all the way down to a cutoff if any at the plank scale were the case, only those wavelengths and frequencies with natural resonance associated with existing particles are of concern… and second tossing the GR issue of all energy contributing to a gravitational field is at present far into the theoretical, since we have no evidence of any gravitational field that is not associated with a massive object…, or the speculation that some Dark Matter we can’t see is involved, which would again be mass.
Now the disclaimer… I am no expert on anything involving QFT etc. for the most part I ignored all of that stuff until perhaps about 10-15 years ago. I was focused almost exclusively on GR, SR, classical Newtonian mechanics and how inertia and gravitation were connected as per the equivalence principle. I only began consuming research papers involving QFT and QG when I finally admitted to myself you could not get here from there..., there being GR. -
#2754 by spupeng7 on 20 Nov, 2017 01:01
-
Could you be more precise as which portion of the spectrum you're thinking of?This basic video hit most of what we have been discussing here. I don't want to stir the pot, but to add emphasis there is much we don't know and much we simply don't understand yet. We need to keep an open mind.
Shell
The Vacuum Catastrophe | Space Time
There is a lot in there ripe for discussion, but just one thing I would question straight off.
While it is certain that at the longer wavelengths there is a degree of smooth transition between wavelengths, as wavelengths become increasingly shorter there is no certain evidence that the same smooth transition occurs. The background potential need only represent wavelengths that can be associated with a physical counterpart. Which would result in gaps in the high frequency short wavelength portions of the background potential..., and corresponding reduce the total ZPE potential. Perhaps not enough to alter the catastrophe issue... And then even if a full smooth background spectrum were to exist, only those potions that could be expected to interact with physical counter parts could have any affect on our reality. Reality, the universe as we know it would be essentially transparent to any background potential without a physical counter part, with which to interact.
Shell
Thanks Shell,
do you have a link to a higher resolution version of the EM spectrum graphic?
How are you going with your setup, no pressure, just curious. -
#2755 by spupeng7 on 20 Nov, 2017 01:08
-
(...)
To understand credible results confirming emdrive thrust we will need better mathematical tools than a relativity which ignores Mach, or a particle mechanics which disguises paradox.
First there would have to be actual confirming evidence. Then as a perquisite for forming a theory of how it works, someone would need to first understand the existing physical results that it has to be consistent with.
Thanks meberbs,
the work and thought that folk put into this forum is admirable and it is especially gratifying when my arguments are made for me
-
#2756 by SeeShells on 20 Nov, 2017 05:52
-
The highest res I have. The attached is 4k x 4k.
Could you be more precise as which portion of the spectrum you're thinking of?This basic video hit most of what we have been discussing here. I don't want to stir the pot, but to add emphasis there is much we don't know and much we simply don't understand yet. We need to keep an open mind.
Shell
The Vacuum Catastrophe | Space Time
There is a lot in there ripe for discussion, but just one thing I would question straight off.
While it is certain that at the longer wavelengths there is a degree of smooth transition between wavelengths, as wavelengths become increasingly shorter there is no certain evidence that the same smooth transition occurs. The background potential need only represent wavelengths that can be associated with a physical counterpart. Which would result in gaps in the high frequency short wavelength portions of the background potential..., and corresponding reduce the total ZPE potential. Perhaps not enough to alter the catastrophe issue... And then even if a full smooth background spectrum were to exist, only those potions that could be expected to interact with physical counter parts could have any affect on our reality. Reality, the universe as we know it would be essentially transparent to any background potential without a physical counter part, with which to interact.
Shell
Thanks Shell,
do you have a link to a higher resolution version of the EM spectrum graphic?
How are you going with your setup, no pressure, just curious.
I wish it was going faster than it is although I'm getting my stuff moved into the new lab and organized. It is getting there and after this summer at a dead stop it feels great.
Shell
-
#2757 by meberbs on 20 Nov, 2017 17:46
-
What argument are you claiming I made for you?(...)
To understand credible results confirming emdrive thrust we will need better mathematical tools than a relativity which ignores Mach, or a particle mechanics which disguises paradox.
First there would have to be actual confirming evidence. Then as a perquisite for forming a theory of how it works, someone would need to first understand the existing physical results that it has to be consistent with.
Thanks meberbs,
the work and thought that folk put into this forum is admirable and it is especially gratifying when my arguments are made for me
Your last post that I was quoting was pretty much you just insulting scientists, while demonstrating that you don't know what you are talking about by claiming paradoxes where none exist. -
#2758 by OnlyMe on 20 Nov, 2017 18:32
-
Could you be more precise as which portion of the spectrum you're thinking of?
Shell
Shell, when I look back at my earlier reply it just seems overly complicated for the simple question you asked. With that in mind the EM spectrum graphic you attached earlier, http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=42978.0;attach=1461279;image, represents what we have been able to detect and identify.
If you go back to the earlier video the discussion was about the ground state ZPE of the QV which theoretically extends essentially (barring cutoffs) to infinity at both ends of the EM spectrum contained in the graphic. If you assume that the ground state ZPE cutoff(s) mirror the graphic there might not be any catastrophic total energy issue. That issue comes up only when all imaginable wavelengths and frequencies at both extremes are included.
And I was attempting to add that from a SED context which treats ZPE as real rather than virtual, the potential ground state ZPE while extending to wavelengths and frequencies far past gamma rays, would also be limited to those wavelengths and frequencies that would have counterparts associated with the presence and interaction of charged massive particles…
There being very large gaps in the size, mass and Zitterbewegung like motions; of fundamental electrons and quarks, as well as even subatomic particles, atomic nuclei and the electron fields associated with atoms (which we have a far better understanding of), the total ground state ZPE potential would be significantly reduced and perhaps enough so to set aside concerns about the energy catastrophe. -
#2759 by spupeng7 on 20 Nov, 2017 23:42
-
(...)
Thanks Shell,
The highest res I have. The attached is 4k x 4k.
do you have a link to a higher resolution version of the EM spectrum graphic?
How are you going with your setup, no pressure, just curious.
I wish it was going faster than it is although I'm getting my stuff moved into the new lab and organized. It is getting there and after this summer at a dead stop it feels great.
Shell
That res is fine, I just opened it with the wrong program, thanx Shell.
Hope all goes well in the new lab this winter
