Create an account Home  ·  Topics  ·  Downloads  ·  Your Account  ·  Submit News  ·  Top 10  
Mission Statement

· Home
· Forum
· Special Sections
· Advertising
· AvantGo
· Books
· Downloads
· Events
· Feedback
· Link to us
· Private Messages
· Search
· Stories Archive
· Submit News
· Surveys
· Top 10
· Topics
· Web Links
· Your Account

Who's Online
There are currently, 75 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.

You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here

  • (July 7, 2017 - July 9, 2017) Energy Science & Technology Conference
  • (July 28, 2017 - July 29, 2017) COFE-9

  • Hot Links

    American Antigravity

    Chava Energy

    Closeminded Science


    Energy Science



    Integrity Research Institute

    Interstellar Technologies

    JLN Labs


    New Energy Movement

    New Energy Times

    The Orion Proj.




    Science Hobbyist

    Tom Bearden's Page

    Unlimited electric energy


    Want to Know

    Other Info-Sources
    NE News Sites
    Alternative Energy News
    NE Discussion Groups
    Energetic Forum
    Magazine Sites
    Distributed Energy
    Electrifying Times
    ExtraOrdinary Technology
    IE Magazine
    New Energy Times

    Interesting Links

    Click Here for the DISCLOSURE PROJECT
    SciTech Daily Review
    NEXUS Magazine

    Brilliant Disguise: Light, Matter and the Zero-Point Field
    Posted on Monday, December 26, 2005 @ 12:46:47 EST by vlad

    Science yru4 writes: Is matter an illusion? Is the universe floating on a vast sea of light, whose invisible power provides the resistance that gives to matter its feeling of solidity? Astrophysicist Bernhard Haisch and his colleagues have followed the equations to some compelling -- and provocative -- conclusions.

    by Bernard Haisch

    "God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light."

    It is certainly a beautiful poetic statement. But does it contain any science? A few years ago I would have dismissed that possibility. As an astrophysicist, I knew all too well the blatant contradictions between the sequence of events in Genesis and the physics of the Universe. Even after substituting eons for days, the order of events was obviously wrong. It made no sense to have light come first, and then to claim that the Sun, the moon and the stars — the obvious sources of light in the night sky of the ancient world — were created only subsequently, be it days or eons later. One could, of course, generalize light to mean simply energy, and thus claim a reference to the Big Bang, but that would, to me, be more of a stretch than a revelation.

    My first inkling that the deceptively simple "Let there be light" might actually contain a profound cosmological truth came in early July 1992. I was trying to wrap things up in my office in Palo Alto so that I could spend the rest of the summer doing research on the X-ray emission of stars at the Max Planck Institute in Garching, Germany. I came in one morning just before my departure and found a rather peculiar message on my answering machine; it had been left at 3 a.m.by a usually sober-minded colleague, Alfonso Rueda, a professor at California State University in Long Beach. He was so excited by the results of a horrifically-long mathematical analysis he had been grinding through that he just had to tell me about it, knowing full well I was not there to share the thrill.

    What he had succeeded in doing was to derive the equation: F=ma. Details would follow in Germany.

    Most people will take this in stride with a "so what?" or "what does that mean?" After all what are F, m and a, and what is so noteworthy about a scientist deriving a simple equation? Isn't this what scientists do for a living? But a physicist will have an incredulous reaction because you are not supposed to be able to derive the equation F=ma. That equation was postulated by Newton in his Principia, the foundation stone of physics, in 1687. A postulate is a law that you assume to be true, and from which other things follow: such as much of physics, for example, from that particular postulate. You cannot derive postulates. How do you prove that one plus one equals two? The answer is, you don't. You assume that abstract numbers work that way, and then derive other properties of addition from that basic assumption.

    But indeed, as I discovered when I began to write up a research paper based on what Rueda soon sent to Garching, he had indeed derived Newton's fundamental "equation of motion." And the concept underlying this analysis was the existence of a background sea of light known as the electromagnetic zero-point field of the quantum vacuum.

    To understand this zero-point field (for short), consider an old-fashioned grandfather clock with its pendulum swinging back and forth. If you don't wind the clock , friction will sooner or later bring the pendulum to a halt. Now imagine a pendulum that gets smaller and smaller, so small that it ultimately becomes atomic in size and subject to the laws of quantum physics. There is a rule in quantum physics called the Heisenberg uncertainty principle that states (with certainty, as it happens) that no quantum object, such as a microscopic pendulum, can ever be brought completely to rest. Any microscopic object will always possess a residual random jiggle thanks to quantum fluctuations.

    Radio, television and cellular phones all operate by transmitting or receiving electromagnetic waves. Visible light is the same thing; it is just a higher frequency form of electromagnetic waves. At even higher frequencies, beyond the visible spectrum, you find ultraviolet light, X-rays and gamma-rays. All are electromagnetic waves which are really just different frequencies of light.

    It is standard in quantum theory to apply the Heisenberg uncertainty principle to electromagnetic waves, since electric and magnetic fields flowing through space oscillate like a pendulum. At every possible frequency there will always be a tiny bit of electromagnetic jiggling going on. And if you add up all these ceaseless fluctuations, what you get is a background sea of light whose total energy is enormous: the zero-point field. The "zero-point" refers to the fact that even though this energy is huge, it is the lowest possible energy state. All other energy is over and above the zero-point state. Take any volume of space and take away everything else — in other words, create a vacuum — and what you are left with is the zero-point field. We can imagine a true vacuum, devoid of everything, but the real-world quantum vacuum is permeated by the zero-point field with its ceaseless electromagnetic waves.

    The fact that the zero-point field is the lowest energy state makes it unobservable. We see things by way of contrast. The eye works by letting light fall on the otherwise dark retina. But if the eye were filled with light, there would be no darkness to afford a contrast. The zero-point field is such a blinding light. Since it is everywhere, inside and outside of us, permeating every atom in our bodies, we are effectively blind to it. It blinds us to its presence. The world of light that we do see is all the rest of the light that is over and above the zero-point field.

    We cannot eliminate the zero-point field from our eyes, but it is possible to eliminate a little bit of it from the region between two metal plates. (Technically, this has to do with conditions the electromagnetic waves must satisfy on the plate boundaries.) A Dutch physicist, Hendrik Casimir, predicted in 1948 exactly how much of the zero-point field would end up being excluded in the gap between the plates, and how this would generates a force, since there is then an overpressure on the outside of the plates. Casimir predicted the relation between the gap and the force very precisely. You can, however, only exclude a tiny fraction of the zero-point field from the gap between the plates in this way. Counterintuitively, the closer the plates come together, the more of the zero-point field gets excluded, but there is a limit to this process because plates are made up of atoms and you cannot make the gap between the plates smaller than the atoms that constitute the plates. This Casimir force has now been physically measured, and the results agree very well with his prediction.

    The discovery that my colleague first made in 1992 also has to do with a force that the zero-point field generates, which takes us back to F=ma, Newton’s famous equation of motion. Newton — and all physicists since — have assumed that all matter possesses an innate mass, the m in Newton's equation. The mass of an object is a measure of its inertia, its resistance to acceleration, the a. The equation of motion, known as Newton's second law, states that if you apply a force, F, to an object you will get an acceleration, a — but the more mass, m, the object possesses, the less acceleration you will get for a given force. In other words, the force it takes to accelerate a hockey puck to a high speed will barely budge a car. For any given force, F, if m goes up, a goes down, and vice versa.

    Why is this? What gave matter this property of possessing inertial mass? Physicists sometimes talk about a concept known as "Mach's Principle" but all that does is to establish a certain relationship between gravity and inertia. It doesn’t really say how all material objects acquire mass. In fact, the work that Rueda, I and another colleague, Hal Puthoff, have since done indicate that mass is, in effect, an illusion. Matter resists acceleration not because it possesses some innate thing called mass, but because the zero-point field exerts a force whenever acceleration takes place. To put it in somewhat metaphysical terms, there exists a background sea of quantum light filling the universe, and that light generates a force that opposes acceleration when you push on any material object. That is why matter seems to be the solid, stable stuff that we and our world are made of.

    Saying this is one thing. Proving it scientifically is another. It took a year and a half of calculating and writing and thinking, over and over again, to refine both the ideas themselves and the presentation to the point of publication in a professional research journal. On an academic timescale this was actually pretty quick, and we were able to publish in what is widely regarded as the world's leading physics journal, the Physical Review, in February 1994. To top it off, Science and Scientific American ran stories on our new inertia hypothesis. We waited for some reaction. Would other scientists prove us right or prove us wrong? Neither happened.

    At that point in my career I was already a fairly well-established scientist, being a principal investigator on NASA research grants, serving as an associate editor of the Astrophysical Journal, and having many dozens of publications in the parallel field of astrophysics. In retrospect, my experience should have warned me that we had ventured into dangerous theoretical waters, that we were going to be left on our own to sink or swim. Indeed, I would probably have taken the same wait-and-see attitude myself had I been on the outside looking in.

    An alternative to having other scientists replicate your work and prove that you are right is to get the same result yourself using a completely different approach. I wrote a research proposal to NASA and Alfonso buried himself in new calculations. We got funding and we got results. In 1998, we published two new papers that again showed that the inertia of matter could be traced back to the zero-point field. And not only was the approach in those papers completely different than in the 1994 paper, but the mathematics was simpler while the physics was more complete: a most desireable combination. What’s more, the original analysis had used Newtonian classical physics; the new analysis used Einsteinian relativistic physics.

    As encouraged as I am, it is still too early to say whether history will prove us right or wrong. But if we are right, then "Let there be light" is indeed a very profound statement, as one might expect of its purported author. The solid, stable world of matter appears to be sustained at every instant by an underlying sea of quantum light.

    But let's take this even one step further. If it is the underlying realm of light that is the fundamental reality propping up our physical universe, let us ask ourselves how the universe of space and time would appear from the perspective of a beam of light. The laws of relativity are clear on this point. If you could ride a beam of light as an observer, all of space would shrink to a point, and all of time would collapse to an instant. In the reference frame of light, there is no space and time. If we look up at the Andromeda galaxy in the night sky, we see light that from our point of view took 2 million years to traverse that vast distance of space. But to a beam of light radiating from some star in the Andromeda galaxy, the transmission from its point of origin to our eye was instantaneous.

    There must be a deeper meaning in these physical facts, a deeper truth about the simultaneous interconnection of all things. It beckons us forward in our search for a better, truer understanding of the nature of the universe, of the origins of space and time — those "illusions" that yet feel so real to us.

    Bernhard Haisch, staff physicist at the Lockheed Martin Solar & Astrophysics Laboratory in Palo Alto, California, is a scientific editor of The Astrophysical Journal and editor-in-chief of the Journal of Scientific Exploration.

    Source: http://www.science-spirit.org/article_detail.php?article_id=126



    Security Code: Security Code
    Type Security Code

    Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.

    Related Links
    · More about Science
    · News by vlad

    Most read story about Science:
    100 miles on 4 ounces of water?

    Article Rating
    Average Score: 4.5
    Votes: 6

    Please take a second and vote for this article:

    Very Good


     Printer Friendly Printer Friendly

    "Brilliant Disguise: Light, Matter and the Zero-Point Field" | Login/Create an Account | 5 comments | Search Discussion
    The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

    No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register

    Popularizing physics? Susskind's book Cosmic Landscape (Score: 1)
    by vlad on Monday, December 26, 2005 @ 21:26:57 EST
    (User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
    [Doc Savage writes]:
    The Casimir Effect can, in principle, be modified to detect dark energy in the lab Jack Sarfatti suggests. The WMD potential of this is obvious. China, Iran, others are well aware of this sort of thing. Heads up.

    [Jack Sarfatti wrote]:
    Lenny Susskind has already done that in Ch 2 "The Mother of All Physics Problems" of "Cosmic Landscape" - best possible explanation without math I have seen. My equations fit what he says. They also clearly show that Hal Puthoff's & Bernie Haisch's theory of zero point energy and gravity is wrong, e.g. that uniform ZPE does not bend spacetime for example. One must at least get beyond that wrong idea. Remember Lenny is the top theoretical physicist at Stanford University - not a diploma mill. Condi is Stanford. A letter from Stanford Physics Dept to Dick Cheney is all it takes. However, Lenny would not write such a letter if the physics were not correct. If the physics is correct, Lenny will write the letter. I guarantee that. Remember I said IF THE PHYSICS IS CORRECT. So far, the MY PHYSICS IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH - but it is IMPROVING DAILY in a significant way. I am converging toward the BEST OF ALL POSSIBLE LIMIT POINTS. I just have to get my EPSILON and DELTA a bit smaller. ;-)

    Subject: What language is this? Popularizing physics? Susskind's book.

    Merry Xmas to All - Hopefully it's not America's Last Christmas.

    If you think that is esoteric - read R. Kiehn's very useful comments on it. Kiehn is retired from Strategic Air Command and was a major DOD scientist. Just look in Physical Review and you will see ALL PROFESSIONAL PAPERS in theoretical physics are equally mathematical.

    Unfortunately, there are limits to how far physicists can really popularize. The best recent book I have seen to do this without math is Lenny Susskind's "Cosmic Landscape." The best with math is Roger Penrose's "The Road to Reality."

    Understanding ET technology requires advanced mathematics. The Russians, the Ukranians, the Iranians, the Indians, the Chinese, the Japanese all get a much better math education in high school than the Americans. Their policy wonks are not afraid of the math. That's why Bill Gates is spending billions in China & India on their Best and Brightest and that's why the American Professional Scientific-Engineering Class is being destroyed and America turned into a Third World Client State of Beijing. China has 300 billion of our debt. Saudis only 54 billion.

    See also Martin Rees's "Our Final Hour" - the superior ET weapons technology when reversed engineered may not be done by Americans or Brits or French, Germans or even Israelis.

    Re: Brilliant Disguise: Light, Matter and the Zero-Point Field (Score: 1)
    by malc on Monday, December 26, 2005 @ 23:35:18 EST
    (User Info | Send a Message) http://web.ukonline.co.uk/mripley
    I have always been a little puzzled why physicists insist on anchoring the speed of light since a variable speed would explain a lot of anomolies that have been discovered.  We know fine well that the speed of light does vary depending on the medium though which it travels otherwise we would not be able to detect some of those anomolous readings with our telescopes!  We also know that the vacuum is not empty therefore, surely, it follows that the "vacuum" as we know it in our region of space is just another medium.  As light travels through a vacuum it is going to interact with all those quantum fluctuations and thus be slowed down if the fluctuations are greater (gravity lensing !).

    I have also come to the conclusion that if matter was related to the zero point field then the "density" of the vacuum at the quantum level would be mirrored in the amount of matter that we see.  This would mean that the the vacuum density in a solar system is higher than deep space. It would mean that inter galactic space would be less dense than galactic space.

    Put the two together and you gravity lensing, a smaller universe than we expect, no need to invent invisible matter etc etc.

    Re: Brilliant Disguise: Light, Matter and the Zero-Point Field (Score: 1)
    by Kadamose on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 @ 07:05:05 EST
    (User Info | Send a Message)
    I highly recommend everyone reading The Holographic Universe by Michael Talbot. 

    In the true scheme of things, EVERYTHING is an illusion; a hologram.  Simply put, empty atoms can't have the ability to create solidity - everything is a manufactured lie.

    Re: Brilliant Disguise: Light, Matter and the Zero-Point Field (Score: 1)
    by ElectroDynaCat on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 @ 08:33:24 EST
    (User Info | Send a Message)
    Matter, the Universe, and the Higher Order are not illusions, our perceptions of them are illusions.

    This realization is the first step to the understanding of the Great Mystery and the Transmutation of human consciousness into a tool of the Higher Order.

    The  true Alchemists of old understood that their quest was not about the turning of base metal into gold, but the transmutation of their base knowledge into the gold of true wisdom.

    They worked, studied, and experimented and shared their knowledge with those spiritually suited for the Magnus Opus.

    Today, most of their theories are discredited, but their knowledge is actually the experimental basis of much of modern chemistry. Without them, most of our science and technology would be severely impeded. They discovered about 15 of the elements of the periodic table, and began the study of energy, fire and electricity.

    All the early scientists, Newton, Laplace, Lebnitz were all Alchemical Adepts.

    Those of you that do not understand that the search for the secret of the zero point is primarily a spiritual quest will ultimately fail. This is not about money, fortune, fame or power. 

    Its about the journey, not the destination. 

    Re: Brilliant Disguise: Light, Matter and the Zero-Point Field (Score: 1)
    by vlad on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 @ 17:29:38 EST
    (User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
    Dr. Jack Sarfatti writes:

    > Brilliant Disguise: Light, Matter and the Zero-Point Field
    > Is matter an illusion?


    > Is the universe floating on a vast sea of light,

    Only partly. Virtual photons are not the entire story. All spin 1 & 
    spin 1/2 virtual quanta contribute. This is correctly explained by 
    Lenny Susskind's book "Cosmic Landscape".

    > whose invisible power provides the resistance that gives to matter 
    > its feeling of solidity?

    No, there is a paper on this in Rev. Mod. Phys. BTW. I will post the 
    reference later.

    > Astrophysicist Bernhard Haisch and his colleagues have followed the 
    > equations to some compelling -- and provocative -- conclusions.
    > by  Bernard Haisch
    > What he had succeeded in doing was to derive the equation: F=ma. 
    > Details would follow in Germany.

    This is simply silly. In the modern POV
    F = ma is a NON-GEODESIC equation in curved spacetime.

    D^2X^u/ds^2 = F^u/Mc^2   is Newton's second law in Einstein's General 

    D^2/ds^2 is the second order covariant derivative with respect to 
    invariant proper time. M is the relativistic mass of a test particle 
    in the curved field. F^u is an external non-gravity force on the test 
    particle at X^u(P).

    D^2X^u/ds^2 = d^2X^u/ds^2 + {^u|vw}(dX^v/ds)(dX^w/ds)

    is a first-rank tensor under Diff(4) the base-space symmetry group 
    for Einstein's 1915 theory of gravity.

    Where the symmetric (in v,w) torsion-free Levi-Civita connection 
    field for parallel transport is {^u|vw}.

    The equivalence principle EEP is

    {^u|vw} = 0 in an LIF (Local Inertial Frame) at space-time event P

    {^u|vw} =/= 0 in an LNIF (Local Non-Inertial Frame) at SAME space-
    time event P

    "Physics is simple when it is local." Wheeler

    Only "local coincidences" matter. Einstein

    The reason macroscopic space-time physics is local is because curved 
    space-time is an emergent c-number effective field theory from the 
    post-inflationary COHERENT Higgs vacuum field.

    If the Planck-scale inflation phase transition degenerate vacuum 
    manifold G/H has the topology S2 with 2 Goldstone phases theta & phi, 
    then the Einstein-Cartan 1-form gravitational field has the local 
    scalar-invariant form, with exterior derivative d

    e = 1 + B

    B = (hG/c^3)^1/2[(dtheta)(phi) - (theta)(dphi)]

    Note the - sign. This is not a closed form because

    dA = (hG/c^3)^1/2dB = 2(hG/c^3)(dtheta)/(dphi)

    is the element of area flux density.

    With a closed non-bounding S2 in physical space surrounding a point 
    defect where the Higgs field vanishes, the surface integral of dA is 
    quantized as 2Lp^2(Wrapping Integer) from the non-trivial second 
    homotopy of the Planck Higgs vacuum manifold G/H = S2.  Curved space-
    time is emergent at 10^-33 cm way before the electro-weak field 
    splits to form the rest masses of quarks and leptons and weakons from 
    a subsidiary COHERENT Higgs field that branches off this one at 
    10^-16 cm.

    Einstein's 1915 GR comes directly from

    guv = eu^InIJev^J

    ds^2 = guvdx^udx^v

    nIJ is the flat Minkowski metric

    eu^I = Iu^I + Bu^I

    B = Bu^Idx^udx^v&I

    The RANDOM virtual photons DO NOT explain Newton's 2nd law and do not 
    explain inertia.


    All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2002-2016 by ZPEnergy. Disclaimer: No content, on or affiliated with ZPEnergy should be construed as or relied upon as investment advice. While every effort is made to ensure that the information contained on ZPEnergy is correct, the operators of ZPEnergy make no warranties as to its accuracy. In all respects visitors should seek independent verification and investment advice.
    Keywords: ZPE, ZPF, Zero Point Energy, Zero Point Fluctuations, ZPEnergy, New Energy Technology, Small Scale Implementation, Energy Storage Technology, Space-Energy, Space Energy, Natural Potential, Investors, Investing, Vacuum Energy, Electromagnetic, Over Unity, Overunity, Over-Unity, Free Energy, Free-Energy, Ether, Aether, Cold Fusion, Cold-Fusion, Fuel Cell, Quantum Mechanics, Van der Waals, Casimir, Advanced Physics, Vibrations, Advanced Energy Conversion, Rotational Magnetics, Vortex Mechanics, Rotational Electromagnetics, Earth Electromagnetics, Gyroscopes, Gyroscopic Effects

    PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.