It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by yampa
Any person with decent common sense should not accept theories from rouge scientists ...
Originally posted by CLPrime
Originally posted by yampa
Any person with decent common sense should not accept theories from rouge scientists ...
Arbitrageur dealt with the physics, but I just want to say I do agree with you on one thing: rouge scientists are evil. The only scientists I trust are blue ones.
Arbitrageur seems like he has a considerably better grasp on the physics than yourself.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Some models are useful. Our model of quantum mechanics is very useful as it makes extremely accurate predictions.
But by all means if you have different atomic models and images of atoms that look like your models, please share them with us. If you don't, I think we have just cause to be impressed by these images as evidence that our models are on the right track. Some of these shapes in our models are pretty odd, so the matching images generated from real atoms can't just be coincidence, can they?
I sometimes use this software calculator, it's pretty decent:
Originally posted by CLPrime
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I'm not sure my calculator had enough digits anyway (just kidding, 113 is a lot of zeroes though. I thought a googol was a lot and it's something like 10 trillion googols, right?).
I bet your calculator can't handle a googolplex.
And I dare you to ask it to calculate Graham's number.
It's an educated guess based on an actual measurement.
Originally posted by yampa
you are all sitting around trying to guess how much energy you could get out of a nothing.
No sane science would permit this discussion.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I just tested it. I can enter 10^308, but if I multiply that by 10, I get "overflow error" so it apparently can't handle 10^309.
I'm not sure why that's where it overflows, but there must be a reason.
You should read the source I linked to in the OP, it will improve your understanding.
Originally posted by Aletheia007
vaccuum energy has different values in regards to special relativity and quantum. Using special relavity the Vaccuum energy is low however Quantum says its not and is a high value. isnt that the paradox of quantum?
So based on that, I don't really agree with your assessment.
2. We can try to calculate the energy density of the vacuum using quantum field theory. If we calculate the lowest possible energy of a harmonic oscillator, we get a bigger answer when we use quantum mechanics than when we use classical mechanics. The difference is called the "zero-point energy". The zero-point energy of a harmonic oscillator is 1/2 Planck's constant times its frequency. Naively we can try calculating the energy density of the vacuum by simply summing up the zero-point energies of all the vibrational modes of the quantum fields we are considering (e.g. the electromagnetic field and various other fields for other forces and particles). Vibrational modes with shorter wavelengths have higher frequencies and contribute more vacuum energy density. If we assume spacetime is a continuum, we have modes with arbitrarily short wavelengths, so we get INFINITY as the vacuum energy density. But there are problems with this calculation....
3. A slightly less naive way to calculate the vacuum energy in quantum field theory is to admit that we don't know spacetime is a continuum, and only sum the zero-point energies for vibrational modes having wavelengths bigger than, say, the Planck length (about 10^-35 meters). This gives an ENORMOUS BUT FINITE vacuum energy density. Using E = mc2 to convert between energy and mass, it corresponds to a mass density of about 10^96 kilograms per cubic meter! But there are problems with this calculation, too....
One problem is that treating the vibrational modes of our fields as harmonic oscillators is only valid for "free field theories" - those in which there are no interactions between modes. This is not physically realistic.
However, while taking interactions into account changes the precise answer, we are still left with an enormous energy density. The ridiculous ratio between this density and what's actually observed is often called the cosmological constant problem. One way to put it is that in units of Planck mass per Planck length cubed, the cosmological constant is about 10^-123. It's hard to make up a theory that explains such a tiny nonzero number.
But there's an even bigger problem, too....
4. Quantum field theory as it is ordinarily done ignores gravity. But as long as one is ignoring gravity, one can add any constant to ones definition of energy density without changing the predictions for anything you can experimentally measure. The reason is that without measuring the curvature of spacetime, one can only measure energy differences. The big problem with calculations 2 and 3 is that they ignore this fact. If we take advantage of this fact we are free to redefine energy density by subtracting off the zero-point energy, leaving an energy density of ZERO. In fact this is what is ordinarily done in quantum field theory.
So that's really the correct answer for what quantum field theory gives us, in the opinion of John Baez, which I happen to agree with. Not infinite, not zero, and not insanely high, it's NOT DETERMINED.
5. An even less naive way to think about the vacuum energy density in quantum field theory is the following. In quantum field theory we are neglecting gravity. This means we are free to add any constant whatsoever to our definition of energy density. As long as we are free to do this, we can't really say what the vacuum energy density "really is". In other words, if we only consider quantum field theory and not general relativity, the vacuum energy density is NOT DETERMINED.
I'm not sure why you're linking me to that thread, I was the 4th person to reply.
Originally posted by Amaterasu
I am unsure whether You have read the book, Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion, but it also has a bit about the energy extraction through electrogravitics, a science pulled into black ops in late 1959, early 1960, and also the math of subquantum kinetics, which grew out of chemical kinetics and predicts the Biefield-Brown effect of gravity control.
For more (and a link to a PDF of Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion) see My thread here: www.abovetopsecret.com...
bstract: We present evidence in terms of a D'Alembertain operator acting on a scalar field minus the first ... This permits us to state that Penrose's cyclic universe model in its initial .... hole solution is dominated by a huge vacuum energy value.
We add in another caveat, that the worm hole solution is dominated by a huge vacuum energy value.
...the very real possibility if we initially have a pre inflationary state of low temperature that the worm hole model as mentioned in the next section could give us emergent quintessence fields which damp out quickly.
I just glanced at it, but it's kind of a fringe paper using fringe sources, like Halton Arp.
Originally posted by Aletheia007
here is a better link explaining it
ldolphin.org...