- #1
Anzas
- 87
- 0
Last edited:
Are you sure it's the same guy?Doc Al said:In case you don't recognize the name, Puthoff is a notorious crackpot. Just one example: He was one of the crack team (along with Russell Targ) that tested Uri Geller years ago. Naturally, they were completely duped by Geller's conjuring trickery. (See James Randi's books for a complete debunking of Geller and the tests done by Targ and Puthoff.)
Doc Al said:In case you don't recognize the name, Puthoff is a notorious crackpot. Just one example: He was one of the crack team (along with Russell Targ) that tested Uri Geller years ago. Naturally, they were completely duped by Geller's conjuring trickery. (See James Randi's books for a complete debunking of Geller and the tests done by Targ and Puthoff.)
Maaneli said:This is a very disingenuous characterization of Puthoff. In fact, if you check his publications webpage at www.earthtech.org/publications, you will find that he has published numerous papers in Phys Rev. and other respected physics journals.
Also, consider that earthtech and the Institute for Advanced Studies are privately owned by investor Bill Church and actually save the government money, by testing dubious devices which would otherwise be tested or evaluated by the NBS, USPTO, or NASA. In fact, Puthoff likens earthech to a mini national bureau of standards.
With regards to his testing of Geller in the 1970's, he and Targ never verified his abilities. They specifically stated that they found no evidence for his alleged psychokinesis, but did find some evidence for so called "remote viewing" though they never said this was proof of some psychical ability. Moreover, a subsequent 22-year study with the Cognitive Science program of the CIA found that this perceptual anomaly is not exclusive to a few people, but is observed with ANY person. Perhaps you should read the actual study, rather than relying on a dubious secondary source:
http://www.uri-geller.com/books/geller-papers/gpap.htm
Maaneli Derakhshani
This fellow doesn't happen to also own Trinamic Technologies, does he?Maaneli said:Also, consider that earthtech and the Institute for Advanced Studies are privately owned by investor Bill Church
dextercioby said:In short,IT IS.One needn't have a PhD to figure out the error in this phrase:"Since light, magnetic fields and heat all travel through a vacuum, something must be there."
tdunc said:Anyway, I don't see what your peoples problem is with this article, he makes no new claims does he? ZPE is being described as the energy field charge that exsists at any point as the sum of all charges in the Universe. This is in part described in Feyman Lectures volume 1 chapter 31 in "The index of refraction" in which he states
"(a) That the total electrical field in any physcial circumstance can always be represented by the sum of the fields from all the charges in the Universe"
Feyman then goes on to describe why the source of an electric wave that travels through a material (glass sheet) must take into acount the charges within that material that will affect the measurement at a point past the material in addition to numerous environmental charges. Eg. The total electrical field measured past the sheet is according to the source charge, the material charges and the Universe charges. So the "empty" Universe (so called vaccum) has within it a certain definate energy that is the sum of all charges, while each charge drops off as the square inverse of the first power of distance. ZPE is directly associated with such Universal electric field such we can say that a vacuum is almost never void of a measurable charge.
Now re-read this section "SOURCE OF ZERO-POINT ENERGY"
The question is possed how do you achieve "VACUUM ENERGY EXTRACTION?"
If anyone wants to further understand why such electrical fields exsists from every charge, you need to read Feyman lectures on Electromagnetism and electricity, E and B Fields to see why there are 3 different parts of the equation for 3 distinct componets of EMR. They have to do with the rate at which the force falls off, eg. Inversely, square root of inverse, and square root of inverse to the first power. The later given to the charge force field which explains why charges a great distance away are applicable and add to the sum.
ZapperZ said:It isn't "disingenous". It is a counter to the claim that he is a "respected" physicist. Nothing could be further from that! He isn't "respected", especially when if you buy everything he says about zero-point energy, empty space should be opaque with the amount of energy that he claim can be extracted. Do the math!
And as for his record of publication, take this:
http://www.bobpark.org/WN94/wn031194.html
And take note to everyone one else. This is NOT the "Institute for Advanced Studies" in Princeton. It's in Austin, TX!
Pardon me, but since when has the CIA been known to produce solid science? I am more amused that they actually released such a thing publically (oooh... let's see some peer-reviewed publication on this thing) since there have been some legitimate science they have tried to keep under wraps. Humm... maybe this is a hint.
Further, you are also covering up the fact that Puthoff himself has run some of these things for the CIA. Again, same source:
http://www.bobpark.org/WN02/wn080202.html
However, what it boils down to is always this: where's the beef? Similar to the Podkletnov effect and the "hydrino" claimed by the Blacklight Power Co., there has only been "talk" but no physical evidence of anything. Considering the length of time that has passed, and the amount of money that has been poured in, one would think by this time, there has been some legitimate and verified effects. Whatever else they may claim, the one thing they CANNOT claim is that they have a working piece of apparatus to do what they claim they can do AND verified independently.
There have been way too many cries of wolf. It is perfectly understandable that the physics community does not pay much credibility to him anymore.
Zz.
My only point of curiosity regarding your post is: if you're so familiar with Feynman's work, why don't you know how to spell his name?tdunc said:If anyone wants to further understand why such electrical fields exsists from every charge, you need to read Feyman lectures
Maaneli said:Of course Puthoff is a controversial physicist, but he has done some cutting edge work in laser physics that is acknowledged by all in the mainstream physics community. In fact, he is the inventor of the tunable raman laser Patent No. 3,624,421, issued 30 November 1971.
I'm assuming you know that if you integrate all modes of ZP radiation, from 0 to infinity, the sum diverges. And if you place the Planck frequency as the cutoff, you get an energy density of approximately 10^114 J/m^3. This calculation is straight out of QED.
Again, these are not controversial or fringe ideas. If you analyze the physical and mathematical arguments, you will find that they are very plausible and rigorous.
<< And as for his record of publication, take this:
http://www.bobpark.org/WN94/wn031194.html >>
Bob Park says nothing in that link to disparage Puthoff's publication record. And the fact that he views ZPE energy extraction as a bizarre idea, indicates that he has not bothered to seriously examine the theories and has a limited understanding of thermodynamics and QED. Again, it's not a good idea to rely on secondary sources. I get the impression that you didn't bother to look at the publication link:
http://www.earthtech.org/publications/index.html
tdunc said:Zapper, I won't even try to explain to you the reason I posted what I posted. I certainly did not write it for you to comment on it, as you certainly know more about it then I do... I would like to state that I happen to be in agreement with you in your viewpoint on ZPE, that extraction or even exsistence of such energies is unlikely but it certainly does not fall under the category of impossible or crackpot theory if our interpretation or definition of ZPE is not exactly clear what ZPE IS. ZPE is a very abstract concept that can in a lot of cases be misunderstood or fabricated to be used in context of a given theory (Example being the Casimer effect is attributed to ZPE, whether that is actually true or not is debateable.), one that should be treated as such but realizing that such an energy Could exsist and one which Certain numbers and concepts Imply exsists. For example of that read (courtesy of X-43D), with emphasis on Modes and application of Heisenberg uncertainty principle to them
Not That much energy, Excess energy in the sense of being able to "tap" into it, for what its worth (possibly space travel)- That is what I gather from it.
I will add my own links to this discussion then that's all, ZPE admittedly barely holds my attention for long (thats not me thinking its crackpot either, but because its not well defined what the hell I am suppose to learn from it or where it is applicable i.e. seemingly the only subject in physics that cites "ZPE" is a topic on ZPE itself, aside some newer gravity theories -which in turn can't be taken to seriously if ZPE is not fully verified)
ZapperZ said:And I can show you the patent for the hydrino, and a device that put out signal faster than light that can make your begonias grow faster. Such things mean nothing especially until several years ago when the US Patent Office was infiltrated with "free energy" advocates. Luckily, they are gone now.
ZapperZ said:And I'm assuming you know that the mass of an electron also diverges without any renormalization in QED.
There is one GLARING omission out of all this - where is the experimental proof? If I can get THAT much energy out of the vacuum state, the universe would be OPAQUE and this will NOT be controversial. Everyone and their grandmother would already be siphoning energy out of such thing!
ZapperZ said:Those of us who are experimentalists will argue against that. Open a typical Physical Review journal and point to me how many of the theoretical papers published have actually amounted to anything physical. Physical and mathematical arguments do not necessarily produce a valid physical effect.
.. while you keep citing HIS webpage as a legitimate, unbiased reference. So this is your "direct source"?
ZapperZ said:Again, if you look at how physics progresses, especially when "experimental" evidence are made, one can clearly see that LEGITIMATE evidence IMPROVES with time as more and more tests are made and our knowledge of it evolves. We know MORE about many things that we have discovered. And not only that, the effects, which may be very small and hard to detect in the beginning, becomes more and more pronouced, with a greater accuracy of measurement. We have seen this in the top quark mass, and we are seeing this in the neutrino mixing angle. Difficult as they were in their initial find, we know MORE and MORE of their properties as we go along.
The same cannot be said about the Podkletnov effect, ESP, and the extraction of THAT much energy out of ZPE. Such claims and "evidence" have been made for YEARS, and we have not only no improvement in evidence, but zilch independent reproducibility. Just look at how extremely difficult to even detect straightforward Casimir effect even WITH an applied field!
ZapperZ said:A few blocks from my office was one of the original building that housed, I think, the Chicago Pile #4. It was one of the first demonstration of "useful" energy from a nuclear reaction - they had 4 light bulbs connected that was lighted up solely from energy coming from the fission process that have been studied since Fermi first made a controlled chain reaction under the U of C football stadium (another example of a progression in a valid claim). Till these ZPE advocates can produce the same demonstration, all claims that such a thing has "physically and mathematically" valid arguments mean nothing.
Zz.
Maaneli said:He's also published a standard textbook - R.H. Pantel, H.E. Puthoff: Fundamentals of quantum electronics. John Wiley, 1969. - which is used by most university physics courses on laser physics.
If you knew much about laser physics, you would know how significant Puthoff's patent was. Do a search on the tunable raman laser, and then come back and try to downplay it.
This is a bad counter example. When summing the modes of ZP radiation, the analogue to renormalization is placing the Planck frequency as the cuthoff. And that's all you have to do. It's interesting to note that you have gone from thinking that extracting ANY useful work from the ZPE is a crackpot idea, to thinking that extracting a nearly INFINITE amount of energy is a crackpot idea. Well, to be honest, I find this new position of yours to be much more reasonable. No physicist really knows how much energy we can actuall draw from the ZPE, but the point is, as long as there is no theoretical limit - and there isn't - then its an idea worth pursuing, just like drawing energy from nuclear fission was.
With regards to your comment that the universe should be opaque with such a high ZP energy density, this is actually incorrect. If you have a homogeneous distribution of randomly phased, nonthermal, virtual photon radiaition field with an energy density of 10^114 J/m^3 in space, you will not visually observe this field because you are in thermodynamics equiliubrium with that radiation bath. In thermodynamics, if you are in thermal equilibrium with a uniform bath of electromagnetic radiation, you will not be aware of that radiation bath, unless you produce excitations such as heating a blackbody radiator or accelerating through the field that cause the electromagnetic waves to couple into ensembles and become more intense than the surrounding EM field. Likewise, it's only when you produce asymmetries in the vacuum fluctuation field that you observed noticeable effects i.e. the Casimir effect or spontaneous emission.
So based on the above comment, are you saying that most theoretical papers, even those that are universally acknowledged, have little intrinsic value in physics? Then this is a classic case of a theorist arguing with an experimentalist.
Like I said before, ZP energy extraction already exists on a small scale. The problem is that, like nuclear fission initially, Puthoff and others have been unable to scale up the effect. And again, consider how much manpower was devoted to nuclear energy and other areas of physics, versus ZPE extraction.
I should also mention though that there has been considerable discussion by Milton, Visser, and Schwinger of a dynamical Casimir effect mechanism to account for sonoluminescence, which has the potential to lead to nuclear fusion. In fact, one could argue that it already has via Taleyharkan's work.
So you don't think much of theoretical physics. Well then what can I say!
ZapperZ said:You seem to have missed a considerable number of the counter point I was making.
In this particular case, you tried to raise his stature by citing the fact that he has patents. I did NOT argue against the validity of the patent. I argued against using the POINT that JUST because someone has a patent, it doesn't AUTOMATICALLY means such a thing must be correct, or that person is anywhere sane. You are making it sound as if having a patent is a SUFFICIENT CRITERIA to be taken seriously. I provided counted examples. It has nothing to do laser physics, thank you.
ZapperZ said:Er... there's no "theoretical limit" to drawing energy from nuclear fission? Since when?
Also, can you please find in this thread where I said this is "crackpottery"? My intrusion in this thread was when there was a claim that Puthoff is considered generally to be a "respected" physicist, as if what he represents is generally accepted. He isn't! The opinion expressed by Bob Park isn't a minority opinion!
ZapperZ said:And this accounts for non-opacity of free space for the whole range of EM spectrum that we know of?
ZapperZ said:And it is rather anthropic, don't you think, that space just happens to have the correct radiation field for us to be in "thermal equilibrium" to it.
ZapperZ said:There are MANY theories that are plausible physically and mathematically that are NOT valid and have no empirical evidence of their validity. To be "plausible" physically and mathematically isn't a sufficient criteria to be valid, not by a longshot.
ZapperZ said:No one here is arguing about the validity of the Casimir effect. I've attended enough talks by various people to know such a thing is well documented. But pay attention to how small, and how difficult it is to achieve such a thing even with an applied field! Such an effect is consistent with the extremely weak effects expected out of such a vacuum state! None of the seminars that I've attended have people made the same claim as Puthoff. What does he know that they don't?
ZapperZ said:I think A LOT about theoretical physics.
ZapperZ said:I just don't think much of exegerated claims of something being possible "on paper" that has gone on for years without any kind of improvement or progress.
Zz.
I think you will come to find that the reason it is such a common occurance is because there are very educated people here on PF that are intelligent enough to see what others may not.Originally posted by tdunc:I won't even begin to get involved is this discussion. I am merely pointing out the fact that it seems to me that it is more than a common occurance on PF to see the usage of the word crackpot when anything outside the textbooks is presented. New theories are just Not welcomed here whatsoever;
About his ZPE work under the dubious auspices of the "Institute for Advanced Study", I cannot comment. But nothing you've said changes my opinion of Puthoff, who, in my opinion, was made a laughing stock by Geller (or rather by Randi, who exposed Geller). (And yet you used Uri Geller's own website as a reference in your first post. Tell me you're not serious.)Maaneli said:And I was responding to Doc Al's ignorant, knee-jerk characterization of Puthoff and his work as crackpottery. And I explicitly said in previous posts that Puthoff's views are controversial and not of the majority. This doesn't make him a crackpot however! But the fact that you are defending what he said makes me think that maybe you agree with him! And that's unreasonable.
No, crack pottery is not a legitimate scientific field. It is not recognized or accepted by the scientific community and lacks empirical evidence or rigorous testing.
The main difference between crack pottery and legitimate scientific theories is that crack pottery lacks scientific evidence and is based on unfounded claims or pseudoscience. Legitimate scientific theories are supported by evidence, experimentation, and peer-reviewed research.
No, crack pottery ideas cannot be tested and validated as they lack scientific evidence and are not based on the scientific method. Without empirical evidence, ideas cannot be considered scientifically valid.
Some people may believe in crack pottery ideas because they are attracted to the novelty and unconventional nature of these ideas. Additionally, some may find comfort in believing in alternative explanations for complex scientific concepts.
The main way to distinguish between crack pottery and legitimate scientific theories is through critical thinking and evaluating evidence. Crack pottery often lacks empirical evidence and relies on pseudoscience, while legitimate scientific theories are supported by research and experimentation.