please see
http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~dunne/dunne_schwinger.html *The Schwinger effect: non-perturbative vacuum pair production* On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:44 PM, Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> wrote: > David-- > > Pair production, which I assume you agree is real, creates mass from empty > space. What is the source of this mass, or the equivalent energy? What is > the mechanism that makes this happen? > > The parameter of spin associated with the electron and the positron that > are produced in the pair production involves angular momentum of the > electron that comes from some source--empty space or some other place. > Where does the energy associated with that angular momentum of each of > those new particles come from? > > Why does not the rest mass of the electron or the positron include the > energy associated with the angular momentum that is intrinsic to those > particles? > > One possible answer is that the energy associated with angular momentum > is not convertible to mass, at least in the 3-D space we know, but is > coupled to epos and their mass energy in the Dirac sea of particles with > negative energy. > > I do not have a good answer for the conversion of angular momentum to > linear momentum involving the Dirac sea. I believe Dirac only assumed > conservation of energy. > > D. L. Hotson provided some explaination of the Dirac sea and its realtion > to the spin of the electron and positron in an interesting paper that can > be obtained at the following link: > > > http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CDUQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fopenseti.org%2FDocs%2FHotsonPart1.pdf&ei=W_lzVIS_KoT3oATC_IGABA&usg=AFQjCNEGpOAW06Y1ny75ZQHr58i_WIOasA&bvm=bv.80185997,d.cGU > > Check page 12 of this paper for the a possible answer regarding the > conversion of energy associated with angular momentur of the electron and > positron. > > Bob > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Sent:* Monday, November 24, 2014 6:15 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. > > I suppose that if one can assume that mass can just vanish into somewhere > without leaving a trace that it may be possible for a drive of this sort to > operate. It is easy for the guy on the ship to detect that he is > accelerating which takes a force and therefore energy from somewhere. That > source could be onboard the ship in the form of a cold fusion reactor or > something similar. > > With this in mind I believe that it becomes necessary to prove that the > sink for this energy is indeed something like the Dirac sea. So far > evidence for some sort of invisible sink is found in the form of a force > that some researchers claim to measure when experimenting with reactionless > drives. It is quite unfortunate that the magnitude of the forces thus far > measured is so tiny. If it can be shown that a vehicle in open space can > accelerate without any form of exhaust then I think the concept may be > valid. Of course all of the energy must be obtained from within the > vehicle and not due to outside influence. > > It remains a question as to whether or not mass can vanish in the manner > suggested. Locate a spaceship that accelerates without exhaust and you > make a strong case for some energy sink that can be pushed against although > the Dirac sea may not be that sink. > > Dave > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 7:57 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. > > David-- > > In your going and coming trip: > > The spaceman uses energy by speeding up and slowing down in each > direction--going out and coming back. He notices a loss of mass to > somewhere, but not account for by any particles or mass he can measure that > has left the space craft in going and coming back. > > The stationary observer sees a speeding up and slowing down going out and > the same coming back. He also does not see any mass being expelled by the > spaceship. However he weighs the ship when it has returned and notices a > decrease in mass equivalent to the energy used to speed up and slow down > that he observed. Both of the observers see the same loss of mass, but do > not realize it has been transferred to outside of their 3-D space as > negative energy and momentum to the Dirac sea. Total energy and momentum > was conserved in the transfer. > > Seems magical, but conserves energy and momentum, potentially by > conserving spin energy with a coupling between angular momentum and linear > momentum and related energy states whether those states are negative or > positive--I sound like Rossi-- > > Bob > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Sent:* Monday, November 24, 2014 10:05 AM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. > > When the ship was moving in one direction only we calculate that all of > the missing mass ends up as kinetic energy of the ship. But now that two > directions are used and we end up at the original starting point and > velocity we decide that all of that energy is imparted to the negative > energy sea. How do we reconcile these two very different sinks for the > energy? > > I seldom like to use the term magic in a scientific argument, but that is > the best way to explain this concept. We operate a device onboard our > ship for a long period of time while our ship vanishes into thin space. > We have absolutely nothing to show for the missing mass and no one can > locate any of it. That is a long stretch. > > A second observer that was at rest next to the ship before the drive was > active is also confused. He sees the ship gaining kinetic energy while > violating the conservation of momentum by demonstrating no exhaust stream. > But then, it returns to his side with no motion remaining and contains > potentially much less mass than before. He must be totally baffled. This > is especially difficult for him to understand when everything would add up > correctly had the ship used a normal drive by ejecting exhaust. > > There are too many inconsistencies for me to accept the concept as > possible so far. > > Dave > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 12:14 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. > > David-- > > The guy need only account for the loss of mass energy by adding the amount > of energy transferred to the negative energy sea. > > Of course, if he does not consider a negative energy sea exists, he cannot > properly account. He is stuck with an observation that makes no sense to > him. > > His reaction less drive converted what was originally linear momentum of > real particles to the intrinsic property of angular momentum energy, which > he does not accounted for in measuring the the rest mass of real > particles. The rest mass of his ship has decreased from his counting of > particles, the angular momentum of the universe has been transferred to the > negative sea--the Dirac sea. > > D. L Hotson > > Bob > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Sent:* Monday, November 24, 2014 8:23 AM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. > > Yes, he can determine that he has changed velocity by looking outside the > ship at other objects. That is why I proposed the recent posting where he > returns to the original location and velocity. That procedure counters the > thought that a final velocity change can obscure any problems due to usage > of the reactionless drive. Special Relativity is generally considered > capable of countering the natural feeling that a particular velocity is > important in space, but with zero velocity change there is no need to play > that card. > > The guy must reconcile where the mass of his ship has gone after using the > reactionless drive. > > Dave > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 10:38 am > Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. > > > David-- > > You stated: > > <<<After the drive is shut down the ship stops accelerating and comes to > rest in space. Even though the new velocity is different than the old one > before the drive operates, a guy onboard the ship can not determine that he > is moving. >>> > > Yes he can determine he is moving. All he needs to do is look out the > window and see that he is moving relative to objects that were fixed > before he started his travel and are assumed to have remained fixed. > > Bob > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Sent:* Sunday, November 23, 2014 9:21 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. > > The fact that energy can be extracted from the battery to drive the > microwave source is certainly possible. No one will ague against that > point. The problem is that this energy can be depleted without having > anything to show for its loss. If taken to the extreme most of the ship > can be converted into energy by some nuclear process to supply power for > the drive mechanism. > > After the drive is shut down the ship stops accelerating and comes to rest > in space. Even though the new velocity is different than the old one > before the drive operates, a guy onboard the ship can not determine that he > is moving. He will not have any kinetic energy relative to himself. He > sees that his ships mass has depleted but has nothing to show where it > went. With a normal drive the guy can see the exhaust that is moving > relative to him which contains all of the converted energy. > > Dave > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 12:02 am > Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. > > On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 8:26 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> > wrote: > > I encourage anyone out there with knowledge about how to overcome the >> obvious problems to offer their input. > > > One thought here -- the "reactionless drive" that I am aware of being in > the recent news is the EmDrive. That one involves the generation of > microwaves and their reflection in a cavity. It's not clear whether anyone > other than Nasa and the inventor believe that it works as advertised. But > if it does, note that energy must be expended to generate the microwaves, > e.g., by a battery, to which the usual E=mc^2 conversion will apply. > > Eric > >
