At the end of this copy, it is said that there is "intra-atomic energy even at the zero of
absolute temperature", where "intra-atomic" is synonymous to "within an atom or atoms".
According to the theory by Max Planck, black body radiation is caused by the fact that vibrating
molecules emit (and absorb) radiation. These vibrating molecules are modeled mathematically as
ideal harmonic oscillators. It's sort of amazing that Max Planck has been able to establish a
zero point energy for these harmonic oscillators, given only the classical apparatus of physics
available to him at that time. Later on, it has been confirmed by standard quantum mechanics that
indeed the energy levels of ideal harmonic oscillators are equipped with a zero point energy:
$$
E_n = (n + \frac{1}{2})\hbar\,\omega
$$
Where $E_n = $ energy level, $\hbar = h/(2\pi)$ with $h = $ the Planck constant, $n$ = discrete (positive or
zero) quantum number, $\omega$ = angular frequency. It should be emphasized, though, that these
energy levels are attached to
vibrating molecules, modeled as ideal harmonic oscillators. The $E_n$ are not attached
to the (black body) radiation which is emitted (and absorbed) by these molecules. Quite on the
contrary: the radiation itself consists of photons with energy $(\hbar\,\omega)$, as a result of
quantum jumps between two subsequent energy levels of the oscillators:
$E_{n+1}-E_n = \hbar\,\omega$. Therefore the radiation itself does not possess a zero
point energy. As has been explained further in a separate document accompanying correspondence
with Setterfield and others: Planck's Radiation Law.
Vibrating molecules have a zero point energy, but photons travelling through the vacuum
have not. Assigning a zero point energy to the vacuum itself is one step further.
Setterfield clearly doesn't know what temperature is. Temperature is kinetic energy of molecules. The vacuum, by sheer
definition, is void of molecules and therefore cannot have a temperature, at all. Hence the
statement that the vacuum can be "cooled to absolute zero" is merely ridiculous, isn't it?
To Barry's defense, though, perhaps this is not what he is trying to say. A somewhat more
more detailed phrasing can be found in
A Viable Explanation for Distant Starlight: "This vacuum still transmits heat,
so it must be cooled to $0^oK$. This is called a “bare vacuum.”" With other words: the vacuum
considered must be void of any electromagnetic radiation, void of heat radiation in particular.
As a consequence, the technology accompanying
experimental verification of the Casimir effect becomes
even more demanding. The equipment must be shielded from all radiation in the atmosphere in the
first place. And the walls surrounding the vacuum must be cooled to absolute zero temperature.
(I'd better stop here, leaving further details to the experts, because I'm only a humble
theoretical physicist by education)
Wait a moment! According to its experimental observability by the Casimir
effect, indeed, the ZPE consists of electromagnetic radiation, which is photons, which is -
grossly speaking - light. The speed of light, according to Maxwell's equations, is
given by:
$$
c = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\epsilon_0\mu_0}}
$$
Where $\epsilon_0$ is the electric permittivity and $\mu_0$ is the magnetic permeability.
Electric permittivity and magnetic permeability control some properties of electromagnetic
radiation, namely the speed in vacuum, which is the speed of light. How then can the ZPE be
in control of $\epsilon_0$ and $\mu_0$? How can light "control" the properties of light?
Contrary to what Setterfield seems to think,
Quantum ElectroDynamics
(QED) is not quite the same as common Quantum Mechanics (QM). Common QM is much less controversial than QED, due to the absence of
dubious mathematical (renormalization) techniques. And it has many more practical applications,
for example in solid state physics (semiconductors) and in chemistry. To be more precise: QED
is the underpinning of QM, but its advanced machinery is redundant most of the time.
Maybe Setterfield's ZPE is most accurately described by the following Wikipedia reference.
However, "This article needs attention from an expert in Physics":
Vacuum energy.
Quantum physics in its strict sense (apart from QED) doesn't consider - and doesn't need -
any Zero-point energy
of the vacuum, at all.
What is this evidence? It's meager, actually. One piece of evidence might be the Casimir effect. From the main Wikipedia reference we have, for the
total (mean) Zero Point Energy (ZPE) that causes the effect:
$$
\langle E \rangle = \frac {-\hbar c \pi^{2}}{3 \cdot 240 a^{3}}\, A
= -\frac {h c \pi}{3 \cdot 480 a^3}\, A
$$
And for the pressure (force divided by area) on the plates:
$$
{F_c \over A} = -\frac {\hbar c \pi^2}{240 a^4} = -\frac {h c \pi}{480 a^4}
$$
The important part in these formulas is $h c\,$, the Planck constant multiplied
by the speed of light. In Setterfield's theory, the Planck constant varies with time and
so does the speed of light. However, the product of these two is assumed to be constant!
On page 54 of the book it is stated that:
$$
hc = {\bf invariant} \; so \, that \; h \sim 1/c
$$
This means that a changing ZPE cannot be accounted for with the Casimir effect.
Meaning that there is even less experimental evidence for such a change, if it exists.
Worse. If the ZPE itself is thought as being responsible for the Casimir effect -
but how? - then according to the above it cannot change at all. Apart from all this,
Setterfield's idea that only the ZPE would be increasing while $\,m c^2\,$ would
remain constant is in blatant contradiction with the very meaning of $\,E = m c^2$ .
Even worse. According to Setterfield, the ZPE consists of virtual Planck Particle Pairs
that are created with a positive and a negative charge. This would mean that his PPP are
fermions, while it is clear from the derivation of the Casimir effect that the ZPE
- if it exists - mainly consists of photons. The latter do not have any "charge" at all.
And photons cannot form particle - antiparticle pairs, because they are indistinguishable.
But, again to Barry's defense, maybe I've got it all wrong, as exemplified in A Viable Explanation for Distant Starlight: "ZPE is made up of waves of electromagnetic
energy. When ZPE waves meet they form virtual particle pairs, which can’t be easily understood.
They are similar to electron-positron pairs that temporarily flash into existence, slam back
together and return to energy." Ah! "which can’t be easily understood". By whom? Anyway, that
"explains" a lot, but not really ..
Maybe the fact that Barry Setterfield is a follower of Harold Puthoff is more of an explanation.
Hal Puthoff's Polarized Vacuum
does not include the all-important virtual electron-positron(hole) pairs. How ironic, since in
QED it is precisely these pairs that make the PV corrections. Hence, there is no PV in Hal's PV!
(-: as commented by Jack Sarfatti).
The true story is that Louis de Broglie, among many others, has become frustrated by the physics
becoming more and more abstract and heavily depending on mathematics. The simple Bohr model
of the atom - classical physics augmented with a flavor of new physics - is certainly more
attractive than e.g. solving a complicated Schrödinger equation. There have been several
other such dissidents, not at all persons with lack of competence. One of them is
David Bohm. Collaboration has
resulted in a De Broglie–Bohm theory, which may be regarded as a valid alternative interpretation
of quantum mechanics.
Stochastic ElectroDynamics
has never become an overwhelming success. And the name of Setterfield is found nowhere in the
history of its development. I think that SED may be regarded as ghetto physics
(achterbuurt natuurkunde)
nowadays. The reasons for this stand and more details can be found in Haisch, Rueda, Puthoff.
In short: the blessings of
SED can be safely neglected
when compared with the achievements of
QED.
To quote from a creationist's source (John Gideon Hartnett): "Regarding the quantum theory that Mr Setterfield uses,
Stochastic Electrodynamics (SED), it would not be correct to say that it is a field gaining attention.
It might be followed by a few but it is largely a failed field of physics" [ boldification by me ].
Sure Setterfield wants us to believe that his Cosmology and the Zero Point Energy is
a Theory of Everything!
Far more impressive than improved nerve impulses / photosynthesis is the enormous
weight those huge plants and animals must have had. And how they have dealt with that
phenomenon. Meanwhile, there does exist another highly speculative theory, coined up originally
by Halton Arp,
called "Increasing particle mass". With a clear explanation
of the Gigantism in it.
On the positive side, Barry's theory does explain pretty well that Idiotism is increasing
with increasing ZPE, because the nerve impulses of some cosmologists are flowing less rapidly
these days. (Sorry, can't resist)
Speaking about Relativity?
This has been said about Einstein. Poor Albert!
** FAITH IS THEORY
** LYING IS TEACHING
** NITWIT IS GENIUS
** OCCULT IS SCIENCE
** PARADOX IS KOSHER
** BULLSHIT IS TRUTH
** BELIEVING IS LEARNING
** IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE
** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM
** CONJECTURE IS REALITY
** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY
** MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS
There has been criticism on Relativity ever since it became into existence. But I think that
nobody should be interested in the wishful thinking of someone who
cannot even formulate a simple problem in algebra or analysis,
let it be to find solutions. A far more competent debater on the issue
is LéonBrillouin,
who is the author of a little booklet titled
Relativity Reexamined.
Puthoff's Polarized Vacuum model of Relativity is based on the analogy of Einstein's gravity theory to the propagation of light in a dielectric medium. Index of refraction in the dielectric picture is, according to a nice formula by Arthur Eddington: $$ n = \frac{1}{1-2GM/(rc^2)} $$ Looks good if one wants to explain the bending of light around the sun, but it is questionable whether for example Mercury's perihelion shift can calculated with it. Bogus or not, the section in Setterfield's book that handles the perihelion shift is an almost literal copy from a webpage by Tom van Flanderen: The Perihelion Advance Formula from Lorentzian Principles.