Zero-Point Connection

[galaxy*19]

Hello all!
I have long been a proponent of Zero-Point Energy, ever since I read about it. And deep down, i always felt it connected to WSM after discovering that as well. Here's a great quote (and link) from a site describing essentially what zero-point energy is... and I think it exemplifies the connection to wsm.
CHeck it out:

[Aireal]

Galaxy*19

How have you been? By the way, great topic.

ZPE has been a longtime interest of mine also. I even made plans for a generator based on my research, but never built it. Mainly because it lead me to things that I considered deserved my attention more, like my radiation shielding for space craft, which lead me here, and a design to capture the energy in lighting bolts and convert it to usable power, and my work on W.S.M. theory.

ZPE keeps coming up in my work on W.S.M. however, so I have had to start looking at it again. If you read some of my posts, you will note that I touch on the subject a number of times. The SED theory I mentioned in several posts used the waves of the Zero-Point energy field to describe the behavior of the electron moving through space. In their model, the electron lost energy and replenishes itself from the ZPE waves.

When you look at the math used to calculate the ZPE, it becomes clear that these are the scalar In and Out waves W.S.M. speaks of. So I have found that research on the ZPE to be useful in my work on W.S.M. It is a great topic and I am glad you brought it up.

Before I digress into one of my long posts on the topic, let us see what else some others have to say on the subject.

Best wishes

Little Feather

[galaxy*19]

Hi!
Well, I'm doing great actually. I'm going to meet some people getting involved in some ZPE research at my alma mater, and I was reading through some links they sent me and here were my thoughts. The cal-phys article is awesome though and worth reading in its entirety to getting a good understand of current ZPE knowledge (it's not too long either!)

Anyway, my thoughts from parts of that article interspersed:


["Thus zero-point energy would appear to be identical with the mysterious dark energy, but unfortunately if the energy spectrum does continue up to the Planck frequency, there may be 120 orders of magnitude more energy per cubic centimeter than the observations of cosmic acceleration permit. Indeed, this amount of zero-point energy, interpreted this way, would have accelerated the universe into oblivion in microseconds."]


If you imagine what we see as star light, existing in the same instant as us, as observed from outside the universe, all as a reflection spread out over spacetime of itself.
It is all the same strand of light, actually, just reflected off all the 'expanded' matter contained in the universe that reflected it. There are many of these 'strands' of light, bouncing off the existing matter in the universe.
Our observable universe is not equal to the possible outer universe which is beyond our observation. It potentially exists on it's own strands.

If the universe DID have time, and it DID accelerate into oblivion in microseconds, but somehow got recorded, perhaps it would be viewed as our observable universe strands.

Our entire dependence on life, energy, observation, etc, is based on light, and light-speed measurements.
It is only because that is how we currently interpret the Whole that we are limited by it.

TRUE unity with the zero-point involved unity with that larger (observer) Whole Universe. We everything is connected as ONE. This ONE is infinite, and extends into Infinity. Made of these lights Strands which stretch and multiply.

FInally, since so little is known yet about the true nature of 'dark energy', I believe it is too soon to rule out the possibility that zero-point energy is some smaller scale representation of the true makeup of 'dark energy' and/or 'dark matter'.


["Two noteworthy successes of SED are its derivation of the Planck blackbody function without assuming quantization and its suggestion that the Bohr orbit of hydrogen could arise without a quantum law. In the latter case, the ground state electron is assumed to emit Larmor radiation which causes it to spiral inward, but this does not lead to collapse of the orbit because the electron also absorbs zero-point energy. The calculation of the absorption was done by Boyer and later by Puthoff by treating the electron as undergoing harmonic oscillation rather than true motion in a Coulomb potential. This is a weakness in the analysis but nonetheless it is striking that the Larmor emission and harmonic-oscillator-type absorption prove to be in balance exactly at the Bohr radius. The fact that the orbital angular momentum is zero in the quantum ground state is mirrored in the SED orbiting-electron interpretation by random changes in the orbital plane (due to the zero-point fluctuations) yielding a time averaged zero net angular momentum."]

"spiral inward"
"harmonic oscillation"
"balance exactly"
" mirrored"
"random changes"


I do not believe that zero-point energy is seperate from anything.


["Several things are interesting about zitterbewegung. First, since the fluctuations occur at the speed of light, then at this level the electron would have to be massless, mass arising at some higher level of motion. Secondly, the fluctuations smear out the average position over a volume the Compton radius in size, which suggests a physical interpretation of the wave function and the associated probability density. (Scattering experiments indicate that the electron is far smaller than its Compton size, indeed point-like for all we know.) Thirdly, simulations that have recently been done show that if such a massless, fluctuating point particle is accelerated in an electric field, the zitterbewegung acquires a helical motion suggestive of spin. The possible association of zitterbewegung with spin has been made by a number of authors over the years such as Barut and Zanghi, Hestenes, Huang, Weisskopf, etc.

Zitterbewegung thus suggests possibly deep connections between zero-point energy and the mass-energy relationship of matter and with the quantum properties of particles. "]

The Wave Structure of Matter:
"which suggests a physical interpretation of the wave function and the associated probability density"
- density relating to mass and therefore matter.
"helical motion suggestive of spin"

["The quark masses, the gluon fields and other strong interaction energies would not be affected by a Higgs field. The origin of inertial mass of ordinary matter is thus a wide open question."]
I believe that at the zero-point level, matter is still in its purely potential form. It is like the memory of the universe of all of the information contained in the universe -- only infalible compared to human memory, which I would consider to be another system built on top. Therefore, allowed its failures, and those align with quantum predictions.

Higgs = ZP field

["These as yet still speculative concepts suggest that zero-point energy may be involved in some of the most fundamental properties of matter."]

Yes, at the level of its creation.



[src: http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html]

[Raphael]

[Bill Back]

ZERO POINT OF VIEW

Each point in space has the potential to move in all directions out, forming around itself a sphere of influence. Each point also has a direction inward, a zero point of view, a stillness , a non motion, a self realization. Each SSW center and all of space has an awareness of itself as well as an awareness of other SSW centers.

I have heard the term zero point used in the study and practice of forms of body work , such as Myofacial Release, Orthobionomy, and Quantum Touch. Zero point being the point from which all things come.

When we have no point of view, we are not thinking yet knowing, we are here and now.

[haselhurst]

Thanks for posting this G19.
I will use some of it when i put up a page on ZPE.
It is very consistent with WSM.
Appreciated.

Geoff

[Aireal]

Galaxy*19

I see you found my post on SED theory. I am also glad to see some activity on this most interesting topic you chose,

It was while I was looking at the work on SED theory that I noticed the connection between the ZPE and the Wave Density of Space as we know it. Thus we can use the equation for the Wave Density of Space to arrive at a correct value for the ZPE at any given location.

You also made what I consider to be an very important observation. You stated "Our entire dependence on life, energy, observation, etc, is based on light, and light-speed measurements. It is only because that is how we currently interpret the Whole that we are limited by it."

On SED and its derivation of the Planck blackbody function, I was citing their work in my post. It was at that point that I realised what they referred to as Larmor radiation was in fact the out waves of the electron, and the energy the electron received was from In waves. Thus you are quite correct when you stated "I do not believe that zero-point energy is separate from anything" Indeed the ZPE is the In and Out waves of W.S.M. Look at my post on the electrons orbit here. http://www.physics-philosophy-metaphysics.com/forum/w-s-m-and-bohr-s-hydrogen-atom-vt511.html

This is one of the fields where W.S.M. can shed new light on a complex subject.


Geoff
I did not know you had planned on a page on the ZPE, an excellent idea. Perhaps this thread may help.

[haselhurst]

Hi Aireal,

Yes. We must try and get pages up on all the main subjects in physics and show how they can be explained. Then get these pages to rank well in Google. That is what I do - and it is a slow process.
But I think it is the best strategy.
So any help in building good pages on various physics subjects is welcome.

Geoff

PS - Aireal, I wanted to discuss some of your posts with you. I sense your enthusiasm for WSM and just your awareness of its truth puts you in a rare category. Some of your posts are very astute. Others I find hard to follow, and I sense that claims are being made without a complete understanding of why they must be true. And I also sense a love of your own work on WSM, which in one way is natural and good, but in another can look bad as we are seen as promoting our own pet ideas.
As Milo Wolff likes to say, we should not love our own ideas, but learn to love truth.

I think it is best to discuss most things publicly (even when they relate to admins contributions here), allow others to add their thoughts. (I think groups function better when people are open and honest, but also aware of trying to be nice / helpful).

So I am thinking that I will start doing a bit more 'critical analysis' on your posts - force you to show why things are true (if you are claiming they are). I hope that this will be a good process for all of us.

And I mean all this kindly, with great respect and appreciation for your contributions here.

Cosmos,
Geoff

[Aireal]

Geoff

Discussing the details of my posts with you is no problem. When I first started posting scientific topics, I tried to include all of the logic and science that lead me to a conclusion. However it made my posts too long and too difficult to read. So I have been trying another approach. Let me use this thread as an example.

I make statements in my posts that I hoped would spark some questions which I could then address. My hope was that it would be more readable in such a format, rather than one huge post. I have been looking at the ZPE for years before I came here, so I have a massive amount of notes and data on the subject. There was no way I could put all my thoughts on the subject in a single post, without it being as long as a formal paper. So I thought answering specific questions from others as the best approach for the topic. I would never make a scientific statement unless I felt I had the data to support it and I felt it was well grounded.

Also I would never promote any pet ideas here that conflicted with W.S.M. I respect you and the work you have done here too much to push any pet ideas that may be in conflict with W.S.M. My post on Electron Persistence is a good example. I have not broached the topic since then on this forum. I will do as you suggested, unless I can find some compelling reason as to why it must be true, I have not revisited the topic here. If I do, then I would let you look at my work on that thread and get your OK before posting about it elsewhere. Even if my research lead me in a vastly different direction than W.S.M., I would never push my pet ideas on this forum. I would never knowingly post anything here that would conflict with W.S.M. If I ever make such a post unknowingly, please let me know at once, and I will stop any such posting. It is a matter of honor for me, this is your life work, I will not knowingly or unknowingly undermine it.

So I would welcome the chance to discuss any of my posts publicly. My knowledge of physics is decent, though my math is still a little weak, and my knowledge of philosophy is very weak compared to the depth of knowledge others on this forum have. So my posts reflect this and are backed mainly by physics, some math, and an occasional attempt at philosophy.

So if I have made any statements that you feel are not supported well enough, please, do ask for proof, I will do my best to provide it.

[John Martin]

Aireal

The link you gave provides just the articles I have been looking for to develop my work on particles structure. Got through two articles without to much trouble except for the following statement:

The pressure to energy density is w=1/3csquared.

The symbol for pressure is p and w could be either work or weight, so I am not clear on what is meant by w in the quotation. Would appreciate your help on this one point,

elas

[Aireal]

John Martin

I have gave you so many links that I am not sure which one you are referring to. I believe it should be w = work, but it could be wave length, however if you can tell be which link it was, I will check to be sure.

I am glad some of the links have proved helpful.
Charles

[John Martin]

Airial

Thanks again, the equation is on page 5 of: http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html

John Martin

[Aireal]

John Martin

Now I see. In that example the are using w as a constant to describe the ratio of pressure from the energy density exerted on the expansion of the universe. Take the value for w times the speed of light to find the rate of expansion or contraction of the universe. Of course this only applies of space/time is curved, and if there is no energy density outside the universe to counter this effect. Both of these points are debatable.

This is the point where I start to disagree with conventional physics. All the effects of curved space/time can be deduced from the effects of spherical scalar waves without the need for space/time to be curved.

That is also why I did not remember the equation when you first asked me about it. As I do not accept the concept of curved space/time, that equation had no meaning for me.

Well I hope I was of help anyway.
Charles