Re: [Vo]:ZPE as 'quantum foam' and Dirac's sea

[mixent]

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Sun, 22 May 2011 08:33:20 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>... whereas hydrogen consists of an electron and a proton in 3-space, but
>there is a great deal of mathematical similarity.  The binding energy level
>of positronium is 6.8eV whereas for hydrogen it is 13.6eV. The 2:1 ratio is
>not coincidental and we can derive alpha from either.
>
>However, an interesting note is that the electron has the same charge in
>both cases (presumably). But the mass of the positron is ~1836 times less
>than a proton. Does this imply that mass itself has charge which is
>proportional to 6.8/1836 (half of alpha)? ... IOW that Cahill was onto
>something that goes beyond a correction to gravity? - despite being almost
>completely ignored...

Note that the ratio is not exactly 2:1. It only approaches 2:1 because the mass
of the electron is trivial compared to that of the proton. It would be exactly
2:1 if the proton were infinitely massive.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:ZPE as 'quantum foam' and Dirac's sea

[Mauro Lacy]

On 05/22/2011 12:33 PM, Jones Beene wrote:

Just noticed something ... and this may appeal to Mauro Lacy and others who
have mentioned or commented on Reginald Cahill's gravity "addition" or
"Extra Quantum Gravity Term" ... which as I understand it - is based on
one-half alpha, the fine structure constant. It is so small that it can
usually be ignored. Cahill is almost completely ignored, it seems. I never
noticed the ZPE connection before today.

Basically (if I am not posting this in haste) Cahill's term can be related
to ZPE via the epo field. If gravity operates inside a universal Dirac epo
field, then VOILA, there you have it ... not proof of anything but further
indication that zero point must be reckoned with on many levels, including
gravity (Einstein notwithstanding).

To wit: positronium consists of an electron and a positron bound together
sequentially (on a short time frame) as a "seething" virtual atom, the
quantum foam - presumably "located" in "another dimension" whether it be
"the aether" reciprocal space, the zero point field, the sea of negative
energy, or whatever -

... whereas hydrogen consists of an electron and a proton in 3-space, but
there is a great deal of mathematical similarity.  The binding energy level
of positronium is 6.8eV whereas for hydrogen it is 13.6eV. The 2:1 ratio is
not coincidental and we can derive alpha from either.

However, an interesting note is that the electron has the same charge in
both cases (presumably). But the mass of the positron is ~1836 times less
than a proton. Does this imply that mass itself has charge which is
proportional to 6.8/1836 (half of alpha)? ... IOW that Cahill was onto
something that goes beyond a correction to gravity? - despite being almost
completely ignored...
   


I don't know. It can be.
I think that Cahill is right about something: gravity as the in-flow of 
space into matter.
You can explain that in-flow as caused by quantum foam pressure, by 
increased aether flow into matter, by epo field connections, ZPE 
leaking, as a kind of generic hyper-dimensional transfer which causes 
space curvature, etc. etc. Even another way to see it, is in relation to 
cosmic expansion: gravity as the relative local "slowing down" of cosmic 
expansion, due to the presence of matter, as in Gregory Moxness work.


The important and common thing in all these ideas, in my opinion, is 
that they point out that to correctly understand something like gravity, 
and indeed something like electromagnetic charge and the electromagnetic 
field too, higher dimensions must be considered. We must seek models of 
physical reality that consider it just as a part of something bigger, 
which will be, by its very definition, non-physical in the ordinary 
sense, that is, not (yet) expanded or expressed in three spatial 
dimensions, and happening at a given velocity, that is, developing or 
becoming in time.
Physical reality then, will just be the unfolding or manifestation of 
this non-physical energy into the physical realm(spatial dimensions), 
according to very specific laws and modes of expression.


This is also related to the discussion about the aether, and in that 
sense, I think that it's an important step to restore and reevaluate the 
concept of the aether as partly physical. We must seek models of the 
aether that consider it partly physical, and partly non-physical. Those 
models will necessarily be non-mechanical, and non-classical. In fact, 
what was disproved by Michelson - Morley type experiments, was not the 
aether, but the idea that the people of that time had about the aether.


In this regard, you might be interested in reading the paper I recently 
wrote: "On absolute movement ". It was sent 
to vixra.org for preprint, and I'm now looking to publish it.
The paper is certainly just a draft, and indeed much remains to be done 
to improve it and expand it. Maybe it's a good idea to split it in two 
different papers, one dealing with the philosophical aspects, and other 
with the experimental and technical ones. But anyway, it's a beginning, 
and I'm happy to announce it.


Best regards,
Mauro

RE: [Vo]:ZPE as 'quantum foam' and Dirac's sea

[Jones Beene]

Just noticed something ... and this may appeal to Mauro Lacy and others who
have mentioned or commented on Reginald Cahill's gravity "addition" or
"Extra Quantum Gravity Term" ... which as I understand it - is based on
one-half alpha, the fine structure constant. It is so small that it can
usually be ignored. Cahill is almost completely ignored, it seems. I never
noticed the ZPE connection before today.

Basically (if I am not posting this in haste) Cahill's term can be related
to ZPE via the epo field. If gravity operates inside a universal Dirac epo
field, then VOILA, there you have it ... not proof of anything but further
indication that zero point must be reckoned with on many levels, including
gravity (Einstein notwithstanding).

To wit: positronium consists of an electron and a positron bound together
sequentially (on a short time frame) as a "seething" virtual atom, the
quantum foam - presumably "located" in "another dimension" whether it be
"the aether" reciprocal space, the zero point field, the sea of negative
energy, or whatever - 

... whereas hydrogen consists of an electron and a proton in 3-space, but
there is a great deal of mathematical similarity.  The binding energy level
of positronium is 6.8eV whereas for hydrogen it is 13.6eV. The 2:1 ratio is
not coincidental and we can derive alpha from either.

However, an interesting note is that the electron has the same charge in
both cases (presumably). But the mass of the positron is ~1836 times less
than a proton. Does this imply that mass itself has charge which is
proportional to 6.8/1836 (half of alpha)? ... IOW that Cahill was onto
something that goes beyond a correction to gravity? - despite being almost
completely ignored...

Jones




<>

[Vo]:ZPE as 'quantum foam' and Dirac's sea

[Jones Beene]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Archibald_Wheeler

Wheeled died in 2008 at the age of 98.

His "meme" of "quantum foam" may guarantee his immortality, no rapture
required At least if we are allowed to periodically update it - ala
Dirac's sea. 

IOW both of these were brilliant concepts were so far ahead of their time
that they need to be periodically refreshed for the younger generation, in
terms of meshing with current scientific advances.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam

Although the original details were different - Wheeler can now be read wrt
Dirac, as interpreted by Hotson to show that the "epo field" is essentially
"quantum foam".

The Dirac sea is a model of the vacuum as an infinite sea of particles with
negative energy that goes back to 1930, but has been reinterpreted by Donald
Hotson in recent times - to incorporate new discoveries. 

The positron, the antimatter counterpart of the electron, was originally
conceived of as a hole in the Dirac sea, well before its experimental
discovery in 1932.

Positronium consists of an electron and a positron bound together as a
virtual atom - whereas hydrogen consists of an electron and a proton, and
there is a great deal of mathematical similarity.

The energy levels of positronium are 6.8eV whereas those for hydrogen are
13.6eV. The 2:1 ratio is not coincidental.

Jones




<>