Nix the Machian inertia, it comes from the vacuum!

[DStahl]

Rosen--Do you know about this one?

A paper presented by Bernhard Haisch and Alfonso Rueda in 1997 at the NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Workshop proposes (in part) that Newtonian inertia can be derived from the zero-point energy field electrodynamics. A couple of teasers:

"The [researchers] analysis resulted in the apparent derivation of Newton's equation of motion, F = ma, from Maxwell-Lorentz electrodynamics as applied to the ZPF [zero-point field]. In that analysis it appeared that the resistance to acceleration known as inertia was in reality the electromagnetic Lorentz force stemming from interactions betwen a charged particle (such an as electron or a quark) and the ZPF....Inertia is an acceleration-dependent electromagnetic (Lorentz) force. Newtonian mechanics would then be derivable in principle from Maxwell's equations."

The paper is online as a PDF document.

But this article in Scientific American (thanks, Torsten) seems to cast doubt on the whole issue of an appreciable zero-point field. In fact, there are some rather harsh quotes from other researchers who seem to feel that underqualified zero-point enthusiasts making unfounded claims tend to siphon money and interest away from more promising albeit conventional physics projects.

Well, anyway, I thought that given some of the discussions we've had about Mach, Einstein, gravity, and intertia this might be interesting...or maybe only amusing.

---Rosen--Do you know about this one?---

Pretty much. I read Boyers work when it first came out, for example. I have kept track of it since then. I didn't read those.

I have a criticism just on your title. Mach's theory and ZPE do not necessarily contradict each other. Don't fall into the trap that there can only be one "real cause" for a given phenomenon. Scientific history has cases were rival theories ended up being mathematically equivalent. Did you learn about the Heisenberg versus Schroedinger verions of quantum mechanics? Or the Newton vrs Leibnitz vs Hooke version of classical mechanics?

Maybe both Mach and ZPE are equivalent. Or both wrong. It isn't "either-or." The argument about ZPE having its own gravitational field, causing collapse, may be valid in Einstein's GR but not in Mach's, or vica versa. Maybe ZPE causes inertia causes gravity, and then the gravity from the rest of the universe causes inertia which causes ZPE. This work is still in its infancy.

As far as extracting energy from the zero point energy, I consider this a far out possibility. However, I have no firm "scientific" reason to think so. It is a scientific possibility.

I have checked out some of those inventions that supposedly "extract" zero point energy. Many are patented, and many are described on Websites. Every single inventor that I examined made the same mistake. He took the mean square voltage, multiplied it by the mean square current, and called it the mean square power.
They sometimes did it accidently, like using a commercial power meter that essentially does the same thing. To make it worse, they generally designed their device to have a high reactive impedance. They put alot of coils or capaciters in their device. The result is that the phase of their power is not zero, and so the power would probably be much less than their product.

Sometimes, they used their product (RMS voltage times RMS current.) even when the electric current pulse had a different width then the electric voltage pulse. It is particularly easy to see why that is wrong. If the voltage extends over a greater time than the current, then there are periods of high voltage and no power.

Generally, once I see that, I read no farther. I have never done a calculation of phase from their devices because they are generally too complicated. They can be extracting ZPE anyway, less than they are claiming, but I doubt it.

I still think that extracting ZPE energy for application is possible. However, I am not holding my breathe.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Rosen1 on 2001-11-02 08:08 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Rosen1 on 2001-11-02 09:00 ]</font>

[DStahl]

Rosen--OK, you have a good point. I've no formal training in physics, so there are huge gaps in my knowledge. I remember reading 3 or so equivalent methods of figuring QD interactions, all of which were said to be mathematically equivalent...so there it is.

re electronics, zero-point, and over-unity: I can see that it's hard to figure out all the power considerations in a complicated set of circuits. I don't have a prayer of doing it, but since it can be so daunting I think it's a very fertile field for both intentional con men and misguided amateurs.

[GrapesOfWrath]

On 2001-11-02 20:28, DStahl wrote:
I think it's a very fertile field for both intentional con men and misguided amateurs.

And talented geniuses, don't forget them.

And talented geniuses, don't forget them.

Agreed! One question:
Can we assume that a talented genius won't multiply RMS current by RMS voltage
to get the RMS power for a circuit with a
high reactive impedance?

[Espritch]

And talented geniuses, don't forget them.

In my experience, talented geniuses are far less common than cranks and confidence men. So when someone tells me they have created a free energy machine (using ZPE or otherwise), I place the burden of proof on them to show that they belong to the former group and not to one of the later. It saves a lot of time.

[Kaptain K]

. . . multiply RMS current by RMS voltage to get the RMS power . . .

FWIW
Technically, RMS voltage times RMS current equals average power.

[Rob Thorpe]

Specifically:
RMS Voltage * RMS Power only == average power only if they are in phase.

If not then power factor is involved.

Just saying "RMS power" around my company is likely to get you hung drawn and quartered.

The reason this is significant is that when voltage and current aren't in phase the reactive power (that which goes in and then out again) appears. Reactive power isn't real power and so shouldn't be considered.

[Kaptain K]

You are correct. I over simplified. What I should have added is ... into a pure resistance only.

[GrapesOfWrath]

I think that is Rosen's point.

Still, I think you can detect the talented geniuses not by whether they make a mistake or not, but by how they react when you point out what you think is a mistake. 'Course, that takes a little more time...

RMS Voltage * RMS Power only == average power only if they are in phase.

Just saying "RMS power" around my company is likely to get you hung drawn and quartered.

Sorry. What I meant to say is that:
average power = RMS voltage time RMS current times cos(phase angle)

However, I stand by my point. Of the inventions that I looked at, there were so many coils or capacitors as to make a large reactive impedance probable. This means the phase angle was most probably nonzero. However, the formula they used was merely:
average power = RMS voltage time RMS current
which is wrong.

Same goes for those devices that included electric motors. An electric motor can have a large reactive impedance.

[Wiley]

On 2001-11-02 08:06, Rosen1 wrote:
---Rosen--Do you know about this one?---

I have a criticism just on your title. Mach's theory and ZPE do not necessarily contradict each other. Don't fall into the trap that there can only be one "real cause" for a given phenomenon. Scientific history has cases were rival theories ended up being mathematically equivalent. Did you learn about the Heisenberg versus Schroedinger verions of quantum mechanics? Or the Newton vrs Leibnitz vs Hooke version of classical mechanics?

This is an excellent point. The "either-or" trap, or "the excluded middle" trap is very easy to fall into, for both scientists and non-scientists. That whole light as particle v. wave controversy springs to mind.

Another example is creationism v. evolution. Many people think its evolution or creationism; they all forget about Van Daniken. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

[jkmccrann]

This is an excellent point. The "either-or" trap, or "the excluded middle" trap is very easy to fall into, for both scientists and non-scientists. That whole light as particle v. wave controversy springs to mind.

Another example is creationism v. evolution. Many people think its evolution or creationism; they all forget about Van Daniken. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Interesting discussion, but can anyone tell me who Van Daniken is?

[turbo-1]

Mach's theory and ZPE do not necessarily contradict each other. Don't fall into the trap that there can only be one "real cause" for a given phenomenon. (snip)

Maybe both Mach and ZPE are equivalent. Or both wrong. It isn't "either-or." The argument about ZPE having its own gravitational field, causing collapse, may be valid in Einstein's GR but not in Mach's, or vica versa. Maybe ZPE causes inertia causes gravity, and then the gravity from the rest of the universe causes inertia which causes ZPE. This work is still in its infancy.

Have you read Saunder's translation of Einstein's "Uber den Ather" from 1924? It is chapter 1 of his book "The Philosophy of Vacuum". Einstein was struggling to supply GR with an "ether" that was not absolute like the Newtonian-era ether, but could be conditioned by the matter embedded in it. He insisted that inertia, gravitation, and centrifugal effects all arise from the interaction between matter and the local ether in which it is embedded, with no Machian action-at-a-distance. He also insisted that the ether be capable of transmitting EM waves so that light can propagate through space. The ZPE fields of the quantum vacuum were not known in 1924, else (despite his discomfort with quantum weirdness) Einstein would probably have latched onto it in a heartbeat.

If the vacuum is conditioned by the matter embedded in it, we should be able to see optical effects. An expected effect in my ZPE gravitation model (still in development) is that light travels through less-dense vacuum faster than through denser vacuum, as in the Scharnhorst effect. I believe that the Pioneer anomaly has demonstrated this very nicely. The EM return times for each probe were too short, resulting in a positional error of ~40ppm at ~70AU distance. This is because we naively assume that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant. The Pioneer probes are not undergoing a coordinated sunward acceleration - the data is telling us that the refractive index of the vacuum (and thus the vacuum density) is falling off the farther we get from the Sun, so EM returns sooner than we expect.

GR can likely be made more predictive if we consider that self-attractive polarized vacuum energy suffuses space, and that this ZPE field is the GR ether. There may be enough gravitationally attractive "stuff" in galactic clusters to supply the binding force necessary to keep them together and also provide the observed lensing effects. We just can't see it because it is evanescent (virtual, but with observable real-world effects), with each virtual pair arising and self-annihilating in accordance with the Heisenburg uncertainty principle.

[Wolverine]

Interesting discussion, but can anyone tell me who Van Daniken is?

See here.

[jkmccrann]

See here.

Thanks Wolvey!

Sure would like to send him back in time, see what sort of reception he got! I bet the Aztecs would love to hear of all his theories! hehehehe