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

Quantum theory

  1. Jun 8, 2003 #1


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    i have found this link, the other one returned to german for some reason, http://quantumtheory.de/en.html
    i cant follow the math so can somone explain please ?
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 8, 2003 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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
  4. Jun 8, 2003 #3


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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 sence but i lack the experiance 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?
  5. Jun 8, 2003 #4


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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 future propulsion systems.

    I think the problem is that these phenomena are theorised 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.
  6. Jun 11, 2003 #5
    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 realise 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 realise 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.
  7. Jun 11, 2003 #6


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    anti-gravity is levity

    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.
  8. Jun 12, 2003 #7
    Newton is on record as saying ".....perhaps the universe is corpuscular in nature". Almost any elementary text book on gravity will contain Newton's graph for a gravity field without a central body.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Quantum theory