You seem to have also misunderstood me on several points. I cited Puthoff's patents to show that he has done work that is respected by the physics community; and like I said before, Puthoff has never made any disingenuous claims about ZP energy extraction. For these reasons, he cannot be fairly labeled a crackpot. And I never implied that having a patent means that the idea is correct. There are many cases where patents are given to devices which don't work i.e. the Dean Drive.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.
You misunderstood me. I said "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." meaning that there is no theoretical limit to how much energy can be extracted from the VACUUM FLUCTUATIONS, not nuclear fission. The analogy I was making was that nuclear fission was once viewed as a laboratory curiosity for which there was a definite limit as to how much energy could be extracted from fissioning the atom. It was thought to be impossible to break-even. Szilard proved this false of course. Likewise, I am saying that many people such as yourself are making the assumption that there is a very low limit to ZP energy extraction and I am saying that there is no theoretical basis for such an assumption. I didn't say one could extract an infinite amount of energy from nuclear fission.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!
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.
Yes. This thermodynamical argument holds for all frequencies of radiation. It's actually a very basic concept, one that many physicists who I've encountered tend to initially overlook.ZapperZ said:And this accounts for non-opacity of free space for the whole range of EM spectrum that we know of?
I don't know why you think it's anthropic. It's actually a basic idea in thermodynamics. When accelerating charges radiate electromagnetic waves in a cavity, the EM waves isotropically distribute themselves like a gas does and, given some time, the electromagnetic radiation bath will reach a state of thermal equilibrium with the charged particles in the cavity, where the power radiated will be equal to the power absorbed. It's a dynamical thermodynamic system that evolves towards a sort of "ground state" for the energy of the particles. In fact, this is exactly what Boyer, Puthoff, and Cole have shown for the case of the hydrogen atom immersed in ZP radiation: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.
T. H. Boyer, "Random Electrodynamics: The theory of classical electromagnetic zero-point radiation," Phys. Rev. D 11(4), 790-808 (1975).
H. E. Puthoff, "Ground State of Hydrogen as a Zero-Point-Fluctuation-Determined State," Phys. Rev. D 35, pp. 3266-3269 (1987).
Quantum Mechanical Ground State of Hydrogen Obtained from Classical Electrodynamics
D. C. Cole and Y. Zou, Physics Letters A, Vol. 317, No. 1-2, pp. 14-20 (13 October 2003).http://www.bu.edu/simulation/publications/dcole/PDF/DCColePhysicsLettA.pdf
Like Superstring theory, M-theory, Loop Quantum Gravity, some aspects of General Relativity, Inflationary theory. You are partially correct about this. But, if a theory is mathematically and physically plausible, and if there is no primacy among competing theories, and if the theories are testable, then these are good enough reasons to explore them further without being chastized, which is why physicists can do so with the theories I just cited. And ZPE energy extraction fits all such criteria.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.
None of them are trying to tap zero-point energy, so naturally they won't even be thinking along these lines. Keep in mind however that dynamical Casimir fusion is theoretically possible, and once again, may have already been observed in sonoluminescence and acoustic inertial confinement fusion.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?
Glad to hear that.ZapperZ said:I think A LOT about theoretical physics.
Once again, there are considerably less resources being devoted to ZPE extraction. And, there have actually been admittedly small improvements and progress in the field. I can cite some of them if you like.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.