Monday, January 23, 2006

The electron

On Jan 23, 2006, at 1:00 AM, Gary G. Ford wrote:

N I take it (in your equations) is the Number
of charge carriers, m their individual mass,
M their total mass, ...


Are their photo's available of the charge clusters
in Puthoff's lab (I presume they are Ken Shoulder's
discover). Has Puthoff or Shoulders improved the
apparatus for generation recently?

Shoulders has yes.

On Jan 23, 2006, at 7:20 AM, Figaro wrote:

Well, by the definition you cited then it would be negative pressure that holds the condensed charges together or the force of the vacuum pressure not gravity.

No, you are confused, but it is easy to get confused on this issue. Indeed I first made this mistake, which I am correcting in the revised version of Super Cosmos I am still reworking.

Example 1: Ordinary Casimir Plate effect

The virtual photon pressure is negative in the longitudinal direction perpendicular to the plates. There this negative pressure electrically SUCKS the plates together causing the observed attractive force. You can picture it as excluded modes in between the plates. At the SAME TIME that same negative virtual photon pressure causes a DARK ENERGY anti-gravity repulsion between those plates BUT IT IS VERY SMALL and not noticeable. In principle it might be measurable as a small correction to the QED Casimir force.

Example 2: Thin spherical shell cavity of charge Q at radius r of total mass M, angular momentum J. ZPF pressure outside the shell is assumed to be negligible relative to the ZPF pressure inside the shell.

If the ZPF pressure inside the shell were negative it would add to the Coulomb repulsion and the shell explodes like a huge bomb. If the ZPF pressure inside the shell were positive it will gravitationally attract and hold the shell of charge together. Of course the electrical effect of this same positive pressure repels like the charge itself (that is the hc/r term), but the whole idea is that the gravity attraction induced by the interior ZPF compensates for that to find a stable configuration on the energy "landscape".

And, since I don't sit and do math everyday there are people I do ask who explain where things come from, I have my own personal references.....Robert C

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

On Jan 22, 2006, at 8:33 AM, Figaro wrote:

As for condensed charges it's the vacuum pressure that hold them together as I saw when I watch in them being formed off the tip of a tungsten needle in Hal's Lab.

Depends what you mean by "vacuum pressure".

Pressure acts in two opposing ways electrically and gravitationally.

Consider a gas inside a piston free to move in a cylinder. Assume the pressure is positive. This means you have to do external work on the piston to push it into the cylinder decreasing the volume. The is the electrical force effect from collisions of the particles with the wall. However, according to Einstein a positive pressure exerts an attractive gravity force. Of course this attractive force is tiny compared to the electrical force working the opposite way for ordinary gases. However, for zero point energy it's a new ball game.

My equations are elementary physics. A more precise equation is

V =( ahc + bQ^2)/Mr + (1/2)c^2/\r^2 + (J/Mr)^2

For a charge cluster of total charge Q, total mass M, total angular momentum J. ahc/Mr is the Casimir potential per unit mas. The parameters a & b are dimensionless form factors.

/\ =/= 0 inside the shell of charge. /\ = 0 outside (approximately)

Q = Ne
M = Nm
J = Nj

If no orbital angular momentum j = h/4pi

Note, taking /\ ~ (mc/h)^2 corresponds to a virtual electron-positron plasma cloud around the bare electron shell.
The vacuum polarization has negative energy ZPF density with positive pressure. But there are 4 polarization states 2 for each virtual fermion in the pair. The virtual photons have positive ZPF energy with negative pressure. The extra fermion polarization survives so the net effect is positive ZPF pressure i.e. /\ < 0.

And, I don't know where you got those equations from but I'm checking the references, those expressions don't look right. ....Robert C

No comments: