Quantum theory

  • Thread starter wolram
  • Start date

wolram

Gold Member
4,223
551
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 ?
 

chroot

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
10,166
34
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
 

wolram

Gold Member
4,223
551
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?
 

LURCH

Science Advisor
2,546
117
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 [Broken]

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

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 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.
 

marcus

Science Advisor
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
24,713
783
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 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.
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.
 

elas

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.
 

Related Threads for: Quantum theory

  • Posted
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • Posted
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
31
Views
13K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • Posted
Replies
5
Views
15K
  • Posted
Replies
2
Views
476
Replies
4
Views
4K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving
Top