Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Is this crack pottery?

  1. May 9, 2005 #1
    http://www.ldolphin.org/energetic.html

    looks like it to me but i would like other people's opinion.
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2005
  2. jcsd
  3. May 9, 2005 #2

    dextercioby

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    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."

    It's really weird that he published in Phys.Rev.D...:bugeye: :yuck:

    This part "This paper originally appeared in Speculations in Science and Technology, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 247-257, 1990." says it all,even though it is in contrast with the sentence that precedes it "Reproduced here, with the permission of the author, is a paper written by Dr. Harold E. Puthoff, a respected physicist in quantum electrodynamics (QED) and in the relatively new field of stochastic electrodynamics (SED).'...


    Daniel.

    EDIT:I wonder by whom...He's definitely lost me as a potential fan.
     
  4. May 9, 2005 #3
    yes thats exactly what i thought probably another one of them ether crackpots.
     
  5. May 9, 2005 #4

    pervect

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    I'd classify it as fringe science. That's basically where you have a crackpot theory that's being presented properly by a person with a degree :-).

    What you need to move a theory from the fringe science category to the mainstream is some evidence that it is actually true, as opposed to a totally abstract example of mathematics that has little or nothing to do with the real world.

    "Fringe science" isn't really a very well defined category - in the sense that I mean it, the theories presented are well defined enough and clearly enough written about to actually make predictions (a hard enough job that that J. random crackpot off the street can't generally accomplish even this much), but a theory deserving the "fringe science" classification doesn't have any actual evidence that the predictions it makes are true. It also helps a theory reach the fringe category if it makes unusual assumptions that are not generally accepted.
     
  6. May 9, 2005 #5

    Doc Al

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Harold "Hal" Puthoff

    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.)
     
  7. May 9, 2005 #6

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Are you sure it's the same guy?
    I was wondering if it might be...
     
  8. May 9, 2005 #7

    Doc Al

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Same guy. No doubt about it. Institute for Advanced Studies... give me a break. :rolleyes:
     
  9. May 9, 2005 #8

    pervect

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    I've occasionally wondered - who funds "The Institute for Advanced Studies"? Where do they get their money?
     
  10. May 10, 2005 #9
    The article is not completely false. QFT considers the vacuum ground state not to be completely empty, but to consist of a seething mass of virtual particles and fields. This might also be related to the cosmological constant in general relativity.
     
  11. May 10, 2005 #10

    pervect

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    It's been a long time since I've looked at Puthoff's theories, but IIRC they are purely classical, in spite of the fact that they talk about vacuum energy. The way I recall it, he mathematically deals with the problems that classical mechanics has with point charges (radiative self-reaction forces, mainly) in a very unusual way, which leads to the idea that electromagnetism causes inertia. This assumption he makes not because of any compelling experimental evidence, but to get rid of problems with point-particle classical electrodynamics.

    Unfortunately one of the end results of his assumptions is that his theories are incompatible with quantum mechanics (which more or less deals with most of the problems that classical point particles have via a totally different route).

    There are some other ideas that suggest that there could be vacuum energy as Starship describes it, which are different from Puthoff's ideas - but nobody's found any way that this energy could be accessed, even via a thought experiment, AFAIK.
     
  12. Jun 8, 2005 #11
    Harold Puthoff

    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. Furthermore, he has actually discredited a number of so-called "over-unity" devices with his rigorous experimentation at earthtech. In twenty years, his team has tested over twenty devices and found nothing "workable" or capable of overunity. 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

    Sincerely,
    Maaneli Derakhshani
     
  13. Jun 8, 2005 #12

    pervect

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    I"ve seen grad students start to giggle uncontrollably when the name Puthoff is mentioned. (Ok, this example is actually from a usent posting, not real life.)

    So the characterization of Puthoff as a "respected scientist" is not totally accurate. "Controversial" or even "fringe" would be adjectives that would much better describe Puthoff than "respected", in my opinion.
     
  14. Jun 8, 2005 #13

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    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.
     
  15. Jun 8, 2005 #14

    Danger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    This fellow doesn't happen to also own Trinamic Technologies, does he?
     
  16. Jun 8, 2005 #15
    He's clearly giving a history of what was thought back then, He himself is not saying this.

    Anyway, I dont 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 vaccum 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.

    There is another possibly wrong usage/definition of ZPE that being the lowest possible level an electron can occupy within an atom... Whatever. Is that all you guys do, find articles and post them here and get on the crackpot bandwagon? I hate people like that, why dont you all do the opposite for once, ignore the questionable(what you dont understand) and find the good points because Im sure he makes some whether you want to believe it or not.

    "yes thats exactly what i thought probably another one of them ether crackpots." :rolleyes:
     
  17. Jun 8, 2005 #16

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    Did you actually understood the physics of E&M, in particular, the Maxwell equation that Feynman was trying to demonstrate, or do you know only to quote him verbatim?

    For example, while the E field depends on the distribution of ALL the charges, free or not, the D field does NOT! The displacement current field depends entirely only free charges, and these are the only ones you account for when you're in a medium that is polarizable! It makes for the handling of Gauss's Law a lot simpler.

    And speaking of Gauss's law, you appear to have ignored completely the role of the geometry of the charge distribution when describing how the field "falls off". Would it surprise you if I tell you that I can give you a geometry in which the E field is CONSTANT and non-zero everywhere? The fact that we have Gauss's Law means that ANALYTICALLY, we can have a simplified and correct way of dealing not only "sources" of charge, but how they are distributed to figure out what field we have to deal with. It is silly to say that ALL calculation of E-field MUST include all the charges in the universe. If this is true, then everything we have done is wrong, and your electronics should not work.

    Thirdly, why is the usage of zero-point energy in an energy state a "wrong usage/definition"? The quantum harmonic oscillator where it was FIRST used, came way before virtual interaction was even though to be possible? QFT came A LOT later than harmonic oscillator.

    Fourth, how much "energy" do you think you can get out of a vacuum state? I'll simplify this by giving you a 1 cubic meter of a vacuum, which is what I have currently in my vacuum deposition chamber pumped down to 10^-11 Torr. I also have it lined with mu-metal, so tell me what value of E and B-field do you expect to be in there at the moment and how I would measure them.

    You paid more attention of Feyman's style of writing than the physics that he was trying to describe. While you keep wanting the rest of us to go look at his Lecture series, I would, on the other hand, tell you to go study Maxwell Equations. This is what Feynman was trying to convey.

    Zz.
     
  18. Jun 8, 2005 #17
    Harold Puthoff

    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. Of course, you will probably say that this is a naive calculation and that based on cosmological observations, the vacuum energy density should be close to zero. This is still an unresolved issue however. It is possible to logically hold the former view. In the case of Puthoff, he is extending, with moderate progress, an approach to gravitation originially proposed by Sakharov which is covered quite well in MTW's Gravitation. Puthoff, like Sakharov, has and continues to explore the theory that if gravitation derives from the ZPF and changing dielectric properties of space, then the energy of the ZPF cannot gravitate. Gravitation would consist of minute changes in the ZPF in the presence of matter in analogy to the minute changes in the ZPF that an accelerating particle experiences. Indeed, one would be able to derive the principle of equivalence if we had a complete quantum vacuum-based theory of inertia and gravitation (including possibly the weak and strong interaction zero-point fields). But certainly the ZPF would not act on itself to gravitate; that would be impossible in this picture. The argument about a huge cosmological constant arising if you take the ZPF literally misses the point that a self-consistent ZPF basis for both inertia and gravitation would necessarily preclude this.

    Please also know that extracting useful work from the vacuum fluctuations is not that big of a deal. It's no more mysterious than extracting work from the gravitational potential energy of the earth:

    http://www.calphysics.org/articles/Forward1984.pdf

    http://www.calphysics.org/articles/CP93.pdf

    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


    << And take note to everyone one else. This is NOT the "Institute for Advanced Studies" in Princeton. It's in Austin, TX! >>

    Surely there is nothing wrong with this!

    << 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. >>

    According to the National Research Council reviewers, statistician Jessica Utts and psychologist and CSICOP fellow Ray Hyman, the experimental methodology of these remote viewing experiments were very well done and eliminated many of the problems that are often associated with such research and in psychology in general. Please refer to these primary sources:

    http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/air2.html

    http://www.mceagle.com/remote-viewing/refs/science/air/hyman.html


    << 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 >>


    And yes, Puthoff was the director of the program from '72-85. The program was in affiliation with Stanford Research Institute. I'm not trying to cover up anything.

    << 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. >>


    You are correct to say that there have been many false promises of "free energy" and "antigravity". But you shouldn't lump Puthoff with the crackpots, unless you can make that assesment after having really looked at his work. Puthoff has not made any unreasonable claims with regards to his experimental research on ZPE or "cold fusion". Again, I encourage you to look at some of his experimental work, as it is clear that your knowledge of it is very limited:

    http://www.earthtech.org/publications/1-Watt Challenge.pdf

    http://www.earthtech.org/experiments/index.html

    Cheers,
    Maaneli
     
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2005
  19. Jun 8, 2005 #18
    I read the same in CIPA. I think it's pseudoscience. Can anyone confirm?
     
  20. Jun 9, 2005 #19

    Danger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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?
     
  21. Jun 9, 2005 #20

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    No, Maaneli.
    Puthoff is not a controversial physicist:
    a) He is not a physicist
    b) He is not controversial, merely a self-deluded fool who has happened to fool a rich guy who doesn't know a thing about science into believing in him.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Is this crack pottery?
  1. Cascading Cracks (Replies: 1)

Loading...