Talk-Polywell.org

Again an attempt to move an off topic discussion over from the News Thread "FRC + IEC ?":
viewtopic.php?t=2329&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

This topic does interest me, but there were complaints about the drift from the original topic. So lets continue that here.
Thanks!

Hmm, well just wanting to be supportive of Skip's effort here, I'll post one of the reasons I'm not a ZPFer. I have seen a handful of serious objections to ZPF theory none of which have ever been answered by any of the ZPF theorists, I'm talking here now about PhD Physicists who hold to ZPF theory. In my experience, none of them have ever answered any of the serious objections to the theory. Here's an example:

ZPF theory posits that electron-positron pairs spontaneously wink into and out of existence. Most folks wanting to make use of the ZPF find ways to make use of these pairs. They're posited to come in pairs so to conserve charge. However, they have no mass. If these pairs had mass, the mass they add to the observed universe would have caused its gravitational collapse long ago. So ZPFers say these pairs are "virtual particles" as opposed to "real particles."

Trouble is, if they have no mass, and do not gravitate, then they cannot exchange momentum. If they cannot exchange momentum, they are of no use for propulsion. Despite this, there are several schemes to use them for propulsion.

Seems nuts to me.

Add that ZPF theory gives the wrong mass for the electron and a handful of other objections and you have a popular but seemingly ill fated theory, IMHO.

I always understood that these particles when they pop into existance at one point of the universe, they have to pop out of existance at another point of the universe. Then conservation of energy is maintained.
That was at least my understanding of it.
So say when the electron pops into existinace within your ZPF- device, it can only do so, because it disappeared elsewhere in the universe. So a ZPF- device would effectively steal energy from elsewhere in the same universe. That is what I understood.
I may be completely wrong here, though.
Quantum physics is my favorite object of hate. I cant stand the whole idea of it, be it true or not. This is the main reason why I will only believe that something like a ZPF can actually work, when I see one actually working. So far I have not. I have read of a lot of concepts though, that seemed simple enough at the time, but never materialized.

It may well be some posit that the same particles are popping in and out various places at various times, but since they don't transit between one wonders in what sense they can be called the "same" particles. That transit would violate conservation of momentum, if indeed they had momentum.

In any event, current theory says there are so many of them that if they gravitated, they would cause the collapse of the universe which we know is not happening.

For myself, I'm always suspect of anything "virtual" used to describe the "real" and the same goes with mathematics that uses imaginary numbers.

GIThruster wrote:It may well be some posit that the same particles are popping in and out various places at various times, but since they don't transit between one wonders in what sense they can be called the "same" particles. That transit would violate conservation of momentum, if indeed they had momentum.

In any event, current theory says there are so many of them that if they gravitated, they would cause the collapse of the universe which we know is not happening.

For myself, I'm always suspect of anything "virtual" used to describe the "real" and the same goes with mathematics that uses imaginary numbers.

Remember:

e^(pi*i)=-1

You can trust it, but don't turn your back on it cause it is scary.