Explaining Quantum Theory Math

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the mathematical explanations and interpretations of quantum theory, particularly focusing on concepts like zero point energy (ZPE) and its relation to gravity. Participants express varying levels of understanding and skepticism regarding the validity of certain claims found online.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant requests clarification on the mathematics of quantum theory, indicating difficulty in understanding the content found online.
  • Another participant expresses strong skepticism towards claims linking Planck units to Newton's gravitational constant, labeling such ideas as "crackpot."
  • A different participant questions the credibility of online discussions about obtaining energy from ZPE, noting a lack of experience to dismiss these ideas outright.
  • Some participants acknowledge that while many claims about ZPE may be dubious, NASA is investigating these concepts, suggesting a level of scientific interest.
  • Historical context is provided regarding Sakharov's proposal that ZPE and gravity are interconnected, with references to the timeline of publication and collaboration with Western physicists.
  • One participant discusses Newton's concept of corpuscular gravity and its potential implications for understanding gravity and anti-gravity, suggesting that gravity may be its own anti-force.
  • Another participant humorously defines anti-gravity as "levity," referencing Latin terminology and inviting further discussion on Newton's historical concepts.
  • There is a request for visual aids or references to Newton's original work on gravity, indicating a desire for more concrete examples to support claims made in the discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of skepticism and curiosity regarding the claims about ZPE and gravity. There is no clear consensus, as some defend the validity of certain theories while others dismiss them as unscientific.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the speculative nature of claims surrounding ZPE and gravity, noting that these ideas are poorly understood and difficult to prove or disprove. The discussion reflects a range of interpretations and levels of acceptance regarding the concepts presented.

wolram
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
Messages
4,411
Reaction score
551
i have found this link, the other one returned to german for some reason, http://quantumtheory.de/en.html
i can't follow the math so can someone explain please ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
When you see something that begins like this:

"By assigning the elementary Planck units to the units of Newton’s Gravitational Constant (G), it resulted in G being a function of vacuum (zero point) energy (ZPE)"

you can pretty much just go ahead and say "crackpot" and close the window.

- Warren
 
i canot understand why someone would spend their time trying to fool
us plebs, is all this stuff on the net about obtaining energy from
ZPE nonsence? on the surface it looks convincing, i found myself going round in circles reading and re reading the content, intuitivly
it didnt make sense but i lack the experience to dismiss it out of hand, is there a way an educated person can "BOOKMARK" these pages
as crackpot and list them on a web site?
 
Originally posted by wolram
is all this stuff on the net about obtaining energy from
ZPE nonsence?

Not necessarily all, but there are a lot of them. NASA thinks that zero point energy and vacuum energy are worth investigation, at least. These ideas are part of their long-term research concepts in http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/advanced_propulsion_020522-1.html

I think the problem is that these phenomena are theorized to exist, but porrly understood. So we know they may exist, but we know little else about them. This means that anyone can say almost anything and they might be right. It's nearly imposible to prove them wrong.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sakharov of the Russian Academy was the first to propose that ZPE in a vacuum and gravity are one and the same entity in 1976. His work was not published in the west until 1983 when a USA physicist was about to publish a similar paper. Eventually they agreed to a joint publication in Physics Review under both names.
Look at Newton's concept of corpuscular gravity and you will see that it has a zero point at its centre so Newton was actually way ahead of the field although he failed to realize the significance of the zero point.
Now add a line to Newton's graph and you have the so-called anti-gravity. It is then only necessary to realize that the 'anti-gravity' force is created by the adjacent gravitons, to realse that there is no such reality as 'anti-gravity' but, only Newton's corpuscular gravitons (i.e. vacuum fields) acting in opposition to each other. That is to say that gravity is its own anti-force.
 
anti-gravity is levity

Originally posted by elas
Sakharov of the Russian Academy was the first to propose that ZPE in a vacuum and gravity are one and the same entity in 1976. His work was not published in the west until 1983 when a USA physicist was about to publish a similar paper. Eventually they agreed to a joint publication in Physics Review under both names.
Look at Newton's concept of corpuscular gravity and you will see that it has a zero point at its centre so Newton was actually way ahead of the field although he failed to realize the significance of the zero point.
Now add a line to Newton's graph and you have the so-called anti-gravity. It is then only necessary to realize that the 'anti-gravity' force is created by the adjacent gravitons, to realse that there is no such reality as 'anti-gravity' but, only Newton's corpuscular gravitons (i.e. vacuum fields) acting in opposition to each other. That is to say that gravity is its own anti-force.

For no particularly good reason, some of us took Latin in high school. Gravis means heavy and the opposite of gravis is levis.

Anti-gravity is levity.

It was very good of Newton to have a concept of, as you say, "corpuscular gravitons". It would undoubtably delight some of us if you could provide a web-link to a drawing showing, as you say, "Newton's graph" and his corpuscules. Perhaps Newton even made such a drawing? I, for one, would relish seeing it.
 
Newton is on record as saying "...perhaps the universe is corpuscular in nature". Almost any elementary textbook on gravity will contain Newton's graph for a gravity field without a central body.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 232 ·
8
Replies
232
Views
23K