 |
There are currently, 777 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
| |
| |
Nothingness of Space Could Illuminate the Theory of Everything
Posted on Saturday, July 19, 2008 @ 00:06:27 UTC by vlad
|
|
Could the vacuum contain dark energy, gravity particles, and frictionless gears?
by Tim Folger
published online July 18, 2008/ Discovermagazine.com
When the next revolution rocks physics, chances are it will be about
nothing—the vacuum, that endless infinite void. In a discipline where
the stretching of time and the warping of space are routine working
assumptions, the vacuum remains a sort of cosmic koan. And as in the
rest of physics, its nature has turned out to be mind-bendingly weird:
Empty space is not really empty because nothing contains something,
seething with energy and particles that flit into and out of existence.
Physicists have known that much for decades, ever since the birth of
quantum mechanics. But only in the last 10 years has the vacuum taken
center stage as a font of confounding mysteries like the nature of dark energy and matter;
only recently has the void turned into a tantalizing beacon for cranks.
As one blond celebrity heiress and embodiment of emptiness might say,
nothing is hot.
To investigate the mysteries of the void, some physicists are using
the biggest scientific instrument ever built—the just-completed Large Hadron Collider,
a huge particle accelerator straddling the French-Swiss border. Others
are designing tabletop experiments to see if they can plumb the vacuum
for ways to power strange new nanotech devices. “The vacuum is one of
the places where our knowledge fizzles out and we’re left with all
sorts of crazy-sounding ideas,” says John Baez,
a mathematical physicist at the University of California at Riverside.
Whether in the visionary search for the engine of cosmic expansion or
the near-fruitless quest for perpetual free energy, the vacuum is where
it’s happening. By mining the vacuum’s riches, a true theory of
everything may yet emerge.
Empty space wasn’t always so mystifying. Until the 1920s physicists
viewed the vacuum much as the rest of us still do: as a featureless
nothingness, a true void. That all changed with the birth of quantum mechanics.
According to that theory, the space around a particle is filled with
countless “virtual” particles rapidly bursting into and out of
existence like an invisible fireworks display... Full article: http://discovermagazine.com/2008/aug/18-nothingness-of-space-theory-of-everything
|
| |
|
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.
| |
|
| "Nothingness of Space Could Illuminate the Theory of Everything" | Login/Create an Account | 3 comments | Search Discussion |
|
| | The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
|
|
|
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
|
Re: Nothingness of Space Could Illuminate the Theory of Everything (Score: 1)
by nanotech on Saturday, July 19, 2008 @ 08:24:20 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Is this not what we on this forum have been saying all along???????????
Space is NOT EMPTY nor is it INERT nor is it a VOID!
|
Re: Nothingness of Space Could Illuminate the Theory of Everything (Score: 1)
by modernsteam on Sunday, July 20, 2008 @ 18:35:28 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | But did you also see this portion of the author's spiel, Nanotech?
"The observations have allowed physicists to estimate the quantity of
dark energy by deducing the force needed to produce the accelerating
effect. The result is a minuscule amount of energy for every cubic
meter of vacuum. Since most of the cosmos consists of empty space,
though, that little bit adds up, and the total amount of dark energy
completely dominates the dynamics of the universe."
First, the author, Folger, talks about the force "needed to produce the accelerating
effect" being "... a minuscule amount of energy for every cubic
meter of vacuum." Isn't that the zero point aspect of space energy, the part that truly pertains to the mechanics of the Casimir effect which Folger described, and with which most of us in the New Energy aggregate are familiar?
Obviously, his "due diligence" before writing this article didn't tell him that the ZP field was only a "minuscule" part of the overall energy field of space acknowledged even by conventional physicists.
Then, he appears to contradict himself as evidenced in his style of writing by saying, "... According to quantum mechanics, the energy of empty space comes
from the virtual particles that dwell there. But when physicists use
the equations of quantum theory to calculate the amount of that virtual
energy, they get a ridiculously huge number—about 120 orders of
magnitude too large. That much energy would literally blow the universe
apart: Objects a few inches from us would be carried away to
astronomical distances; the universe would literally double in size
every 10-43 second, and it would keep doubling at that rate until all the vacuum energy was gone." So, on the one hand, Folger says the energy is "minuscule" , and on the other that calculations show the energy to be "about 120 orders of
magnitude too large". We "New Energy types" are fairly confident that both are correct, because each aspect, actual or supposed, are two different "parts" of the same phenomenon: vacuum or space energy - energy without mass, virtual particles, which Folger mentions, but which can act like waves. The "too large" part, however, can refer to that huge amount beneath the "quantum foam" which (I believe) Wheeler (God rest his soul!) mentioned. It's that "too large" part which we're trying to tap, and we think some, like, Bedini, Marks, Meyer, Mills, Watson and others may have already done so.
I think Folger's wrong, though, that the "too large" part would be unstable, and would "blow the universe
apart". I'm one of those that believe that so-called "unstable" "large" part of the energy keeps the material parts of the universe fairly calm and very stable, with the exception of a few asteroids, comets and the accelerating expansion from the "minuscule" portion we call ZPE. I believe it's due to the longitudinal nature of the space energy waves postulated by Whittaker, Bearden et al, that we have that stability, with the wave stresses having a zero-sum effect, hence no assymetrical imbalance most of the time. I accept they're essentially scalar except when wilfully "engineered" into sharp assymetrical gradients to allow their capture and use by human "civilization". So I take the Puthoff approach that there's a humongeous amount of scalar energy in every cubic centimetre of space - essentially stable -, and not the opposite as Folger has stated.
Hal Ade
|
]
Re: Nothingness of Space Could Illuminate the Theory of Everything (Score: 1)
by nanotech on Monday, July 21, 2008 @ 07:58:27 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | I'm with you 100 percent on this, Hal. Now when can we expect you to write a decent-sized book with your ideas on these matters of new energy? I have read some of your posts and they are well-done to say the least.
Do you think certain materials and geometries may have an easier time of direct interaction with this ZPE sea, or, is it the size that matters as opposed to the material?
|
]
|
|
|
|
