Element 115 and ZPF: how it might work, and it is a revolution.

The extraction of Electromagnetic zero point fluctuations energy is a relevant and somehow unsolved approach to energy production.
The energy density of ZPF is enormous, and tapping it would be a fundamental discovery.
The Casimir effect seems to show that ZPFs are real, and it is not a bad idea trying to find a way to look at their energy density as a possible resource.
ZPFs are uniform everywhere so that it is difficult to find a "flow" and attach a sort of Carnot machine to this flow for useful energy generation.
We can induce a "flow" by converting EM ZPFs to "something else" that interfaces to this "something else" ZPF having a different energy density respect to EM ZPFs. What this "something else" could be?
We could look at the gravitational field. The gravitational field is well described by General Relativity, that is not a quantum theory, therefore its ZPF does not exist, it could possibly be zero.
How could we convert EM ZPF to (now real) Gravitational fluctuations (waves)?
A possible idea is to find a suitable nuclear species that has dineutrons floating near or on the surface of a core nucleus. Dineutrons are nearly ideal emitters of gravitational waves at gamma ray frequencies because they have gravitational quadrupole moment, no electrical charge and have nuclear matter density, thus their gravitational wave emission impedance matches well with the gravitational characterstic impedance of free space. Dineutrons are pulled towards the core nucleus by the strong nuclear force and made to vibrate by EM ZPF induced vibration of the core nucleus.
This concept has been published here (2009):
aip.scitation.org...
and here (2012):
www.tsijournals.com...
Dineutrons and the calculation of their binding energy have been proposed by the two times Nobel laureate Linus Pauling.
scarc.library.oregonstate.edu...
Some experimental evidence also exists.
In the field of electronics there exists the self-quenched super-regenerative receiver. An unstable (but initially inoperative) oscillator is kick-started by an external signal or by noise, then the amplitude of the oscillations will increase exponentially. Then it will start dissipating energy through quenching channels, that are the electrical load and the limited couplig to the power source. Because of that it will stop oscillating, still remaining unstable.
en.wikipedia.org...
By analogy a dynamically unstable nuclear oscillator with dineutrons (the positive charged core is powered by EM ZPF) might by kick-started by a proton (it could transfer enough energy to the atom/nucleus without causing fission), then the amplitude of the oscillations will increase until the gravitational wave emission associatd to the coupled dineutrons will quench the oscillator. The proton represents the input signal. In principle this controlled cycle might be excited an unlimited number of times.
Noise may also kick-start the energy conversion cycle randomly. This hypothesis may offer an explanation on why there may exist stable isotopes of super heavy elements outside the supposed island of stability: quenching of nuclear dynamics by gravitational wave emission from dineutrons may stop spontaneous fission and nuclear decay. Therefore, in principle, the required nuclear species could be identified by the following properties: it must be stable, it could continuously emit gravitational waves, it must increase its emission of gravitational waves by bombardment with non fission inducing particles capable to kick the nuclei (protons for instance). For those interested in the Alcubierre drive, the ZPF energy extraction process here described could create conditions where the local energy density of spacetime is lower than normal (because of the extraction process). Considering "nearly zero" as normal, we could be able to create a patch of spacetime with negative energy density.

About a century ago few europeans discovered the technical use of neutrons. en.wikipedia.org...
Now we may also know the technical use of dineutrons. In the spirit of a greener and less polluted world, nuclei are not splitted, therefore this potential approach to energy generation will never directly produce radioactive isotopes.
What do you think?
Can we start this new research?
And yes, this could be used to propel a spacecraft.

An EM ZPF background (pages 55 and 56):
ntrs.nasa.gov...

One wonders what is wrong if we can't at least discuss this as a possibility. IDK what is right or wrong here on the data but I do have a desire to study the data and see where it leads. Perhaps break it down as that is a lot for many to digest in one attempt to read it. I would need a good bit of time to read the links and may get to it here in a bit.


ETA on page 55 r 56 on that bottom one and Wiki doesn't have that many pages for any single subject do they?

Well, we are talking about a new method for extracting energy from the electromagnetic quantum vacuum (ZPF).

It might be a component of a technology that is estimated to be 100 to 1000 years ahead:
www.dailymail.co.uk...

I am firmly convinced that we can build that tecnology starting from our actual knowledge.

You know the story of Lazar's element 115. Maybe a specific isotope of this element has dineutrons and can be controlled to release gravitational waves and to absorb ZPF energy (a flow of electromagnetic energy).
Lazar provided observations, that might be a realistic account of the facts. He also provided explanations that are not convincing. The idea that antimatter is involved might be suggested by the amount of released energy, on the other hand every matter-antimatter annihilation process produces lethal gamma rays, and it is impossible to survive the described experimental conditions.
So Lazar's story was a reporting/dissemination operation, intended to inspire true scientists for finding an acceptable explanation. Every scientist is inspired by observations. It may happen that some observations are very rare or unique...

originally posted by: Dineutron

You know the story of Lazar's element 115. Maybe a specific isotope of this element has dineutrons and can be controlled to release gravitational waves and to absorb ZPF energy (a flow of electromagnetic energy).

We actually discovered Moscovium (element 115) back in 2003.

www.livescience.com...

Lazar was just behind on his research ....

Maybe he meant element 215?

Well, regarding the above link, the synthesized 115 is unstable/radioactive. It cannot be the 115 isotope described by Lazar (possibly a 115 with different nuclear structure)

en.wikipedia.org...

go to : Elements with no primordial isotopes: It means that it is necessary to synthesize them.
You will also see that with increasing Z the half-life decreases.
The longest lived isotope of 115 actually discovered has an half life of 0.65 seconds. It is not "very" unstable. It might be possible to have time to "install" one or more dineutrons and stabilize it the way discussed in the first message, and obtain those very important effects. If this is a true statement, maybe it is also possible to find a stable isotope of 115 in nature.

You see below that common (on Earth) heavy elements are formed in the very rare collision of neutron stars (Common star evolution ends with the creation of iron, Z=26):
www.eso.org...
www.space.com...
It means that the very rare collision of neutron stars happened near Earth at the time of its formation and made Earth rich of heavy elements.
So the best place to look for heavy elements (possibly including a stable isotope of 115) is here on Earth.
Maybe^3 someone is mining, so asking a part of the mined minerals as fees is a perfectly legitimate operation... what do you think ?

a reply to: Dineutron

I think if Humans(breakaway civilisation) or anyone else is going to mine elements or minerals, the asteroid belts are a far better place to start than down here near enough at the bottom of our Stars gravity well, both for abundance and location.

originally posted by: Dineutron
Lazar provided observations, that might be a realistic account of the facts.

I have yet to meet a physicist who thinks that.

He also provided explanations that are not convincing.

That's a gross understatement. Lazar's explanations show a lack of understanding of physics which is absolutely astounding, as several physicists have explained.

So Lazar's story was a reporting/dissemination operation, intended to inspire true scientists for finding an acceptable explanation. Every scientist is inspired by observations. It may happen that some observations are very rare or unique...

I don't think Lazar inspired true scientists to do anything but ignore his complete and absolute nonsense. Here is what Dr David Morgan said about Lazar pseudoscience.

Lazar Critique by Dr. David L. Morgan

After reading an account by Bob Lazar of the “physics” of his Area 51 UFO propulsion system, my conclusion is this: Mr. Lazar presents a scenario which, if it is correct, violates a whole handful of currently accepted physical theories. That in and of itself does not necessarily mean that his scenario is impossible. But the presentation of the scenario by Lazar is troubling from a scientific standpoint. Mr. Lazar on many occasions demonstrates an obvious lack of understanding of current physical theories. On no occasion does he acknowledge that his scenario violates physical laws as we understand them, and on no occasion does he offer up any hints of new theories which would make his mechanism possible. Mr. Lazar has a propensity for re-defining scientific terms, and using scientific language in a confusing and careless way. For these reasons, I don’t feel that Lazar’s pseudo-scientific ramblings are really worthy of any kind of serious consideration.

originally posted by: AndyMayhew
We actually discovered Moscovium (element 115) back in 2003.

www.livescience.com...

Lazar was just behind on his research ....

Maybe he meant element 215?

Lazar said it was impossible to make element 115 on earth, it couldn't be done, according to Lazar. Some apologists say he "meant" certain isotopes, but that's NOT what Lazar said, he made no mention of isotopes initially. After the synthesis of 115, Lazar started talking about isotopes.

originally posted by: Dineutron
Well, regarding the above link, the synthesized 115 is unstable/radioactive. It cannot be the 115 isotope described by Lazar (possibly a 115 with different nuclear structure)

Virtually ALL isotopes of element 115 are predicted to be unstable. Pick any isotope from this chart of all the 115 isotopes, you won't find any that are predicted to be stable, since the longest prediction is for isotope 115310 with a predicted half-life of 4 days. Most half-life predictions are far shorter.


Your link to the Bernard Haisch article on "pages 55-56" is noted, Haisch says he's one of the few people who talks about extracting vacuum energy who isn't a nut, and he's not even sure his patented method will work. I think Haisch is probably right in saying most other people who talk about it are not as credible as him (or nuts), and I don't think his method will work, but I don't discourage him from trying. It would be nice if it did work.

But even if it did work, you won't get much energy from the vacuum locally. Yes vacuum energy may be 2/3 of the energy content of the universe or whatever the latest estimate is, but the universe is a big place, and Earth is small compared to the universe. I made a thread on how much energy could be extracted from the vacuum, even if some of it could be extracted, which it probably can't.

The mathematics of hypothetical extraction of energy from the vacuum

you'd need to extract 100% of the vacuum energy from about 57.4 trillion olympic pool volumes per day to power the average home.

Even Haisch doesn't think 100% of the vacuum energy can be extracted. It's probably very ambitions to think even half of it can be extracted, but even if you could do that, which you very likely can't you would need to extract half the vacuum energy from 114 trillion olympic swimming pool volumes PER DAY, just to power your one average home. Maybe if Bernard Haisch's patent actually works, he could extract 1% of the vacuum energy, in which case you would need to process 100 times the 57.4 trillion olympic pool volumes per day to power the average home.

So there's just not a lot of vacuum energy to work with on tiny little old Earth, whether you convert it to other forms of energy, or not.

originally posted by: Dineutron
The energy density of ZPF is enormous

I've seen claims to that effect. I don't know if Sabine Hossenfelder can convince you those claims are wrong, but I suggest you hear her out in the following video, where she explains the math starting at time 3:40, first going through general relativity where the energy density is based on observation. After that, she brings up the idea you mentioned aboout claims of enormous energy density, and says first of all they don't match observation, so the claims are wrong on that basis, and she further says the large energy density claimed by some is not even predicted by theory. If you think it is, then she challenges you to say which of our theories are proven incorrect by the fact that observations don't match the alleged "predictions". And she says you can't find any theories that are proven false, because they aren't predictions.

Physicist Despairs over Vacuum Energy

She tries to clear up some misunderstandings on the vacuum energy density topic, and says even some physicists get it wrong or are confused.

As my thread "The mathematics of hypothetical extraction of energy from the vacuum" explains, the observed energy density of the vacuum is actually quite small. Not "enormous".

originally posted by: Dineutron
The extraction of Electromagnetic zero point fluctuations energy is a relevant and somehow unsolved approach to energy production.

The coupling of neutrons to graviational radiation seems fascinating to me but what does that have to do with ZPF? And in which fields, and how would net real flux be extracted? the zero point field always seemed like a mathematical fiction whose baseline value (enormous density in a naive calculation) never had any physical meaning.

Of course Casimir effect is physically real, but that means that quantum field theory is correct, which we already knew.

So what about nuclear neutrons and graviational radiation: and why some extremely exotic unobtanium superheavy nucleus---why can't we see it with regular nuclei we have in abundance?

And what would emitting very high frequency (gamma ray frequency) gravitational radiation do? Would it be isotropic noise? How would that be engineerable into something interesting?

www.dailymail.co.uk...
and
www.scientificamerican.com...
How these things can fly? What is the power source?
Quote from third message:
"So Lazar's story was a reporting/dissemination operation, intended to inspire "true" scientists for finding an acceptable explanation." It means that if you can't tell and show something, but you want help for understanding, just publish few details. The very respectable contribution of Bob is the first thing we should appreciate, but it is an approximate starting point.
100 to 1000 years ahead means that it is not an easy question. But an answer "certainly" exists, sooner or later we will succeed.

youtu.be...
Nice discussion, but still wrong. As already stated, the predictions of quantum field theory are "predictions" because they correctly predict the Casimir effect.
en.wikipedia.org...
Citing the first message of this thread and considering the 120 orders of magnitude ratio between the "TWO" vacuum energy predictions, that are both correct according to observations within the respective measurements tool sets, if we make an efficient transducer between the two quantum fields (gravity not quantized => cosmological constant almost zero) we can create a flow of energy from the electromagnetic side (higher energy density) to the gravitational side (lower energy density, cited in the swimming pool example). THAT IS OUR GOAL. Now go back to the first message of this thread.

originally posted by: Dineutron
youtu.be...
Nice discussion, but still wrong. As already stated, the predictions of quantum field theory are "predictions" because they correctly predict the Casimir effect.
en.wikipedia.org...

Did you read your own source?
Either you did not, or you don't understand what it says, which is that Casimir effect can be calculated from Va Der Waals forces, "without reference to zero-point energies", yet you are still apparently trying to claim the Casimir effect is some kind of evidence for zero point energy:

"Casimir effects can be formulated and Casimir forces can be computed without reference to zero-point energies. They are relativistic, quantum forces between charges and currents. The Casimir force (per unit area) between parallel plates vanishes as alpha, the fine structure constant, goes to zero, and the standard result, which appears to be independent of alpha, corresponds to the alpha approaching infinity limit," and that "The Casimir force is simply the (relativistic, retarded) van der Waals force between the metal plates."[16] Casimir and Polder's original paper used this method to derive the Casimir–Polder force. In 1978, Schwinger, DeRadd, and Milton published a similar derivation for the Casimir effect between two parallel plates.

For those who dont know what Van Der Waals forces are, it's simply a weak electromagnetic attraction that happens when molecules are brought close together, as roughly illustrated here:


So if you don't need to invoke zero point to compute the Casimir effect, then I say the Casimir effect is not good evidence for zero point explanations. I'm not denying zero point in general, just saying that this particular evidence you cite is really not conclusive evidence for zero point energies when you can compute the effect without invoking zero point energies.

You are obviously right. Let's say that the existence of em ZPF is a possible explanantion of the Casimir effect, and we consider ZPF like a reservoir from which we can get something real with an appropriate tool.
I hope we might agree that if we succeed in extracting ZPF energy and use it, then it exists.
It might not reside in our physical empty space, but be a quantum property of our "particles", keeping them in motion even at 0 K.
Whatever it is, I "hope" that the theoretical f^3 spectrum is correct, so that the dineutron converter will possibly work.

Instead of trying to extract energy from ZPF, why not try to eliminate the quantum fluctuations and then use normal energy? I mean E=MC2 doesnt it?

originally posted by: Dineutron
You are obviously right. Let's say that the existence of em ZPF is a possible explanantion of the Casimir effect, and we consider ZPF like a reservoir from which we can get something real with an appropriate tool.
I hope we might agree that if we succeed in extracting ZPF energy and use it, then it exists.
It might not reside in our physical empty space, but be a quantum property of our "particles", keeping them in motion even at 0 K.
Whatever it is, I "hope" that the theoretical f^3 spectrum is correct, so that the dineutron converter will possibly work.

The thread shows evidence that the existence of the supposed super high energy density zero point is unnecessary to predict known physical effects, and certainly doesn't show up in gravitation, which so far as we can tell, couples to everything that we know is physically real.

I take that as evidence that the supposed ZPF is an unphysical mathematical artifact, i.e. a problem made up by humans formulating a problem poorly, and not physically real.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

arguing with quantum fields and ordering them to be classical is like negotiating with cats.

originally posted by: Dineutron
You are obviously right. Let's say that the existence of em ZPF is a possible explanantion of the Casimir effect, and we consider ZPF like a reservoir from which we can get something real with an appropriate tool.

I wouldn't rule it out, I just don't think Casimir effect is good evidence for it as explained in your source, and even in that event we are not seeing an "enormous" value of zero point energy.

I hope we might agree that if we succeed in extracting ZPF energy and use it, then it exists.
It might not reside in our physical empty space, but be a quantum property of our "particles", keeping them in motion even at 0 K.

But the current thinking is if that's the zero point state, you can't remove any of that energy as explained here:

www.scientificamerican.com...

Paul A. Deck, assistant professor of chemistry at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, gives a chemical perspective on this question:

"The zero-point energy cannot be harnessed in the traditional sense. The idea of zero-point energy is that there is a finite, minimum amount of motion (more accurately, kinetic energy) in all matter, even at absolute zero. For example, chemical bonds continue to vibrate in predictable ways. But releasing the energy of this motion is impossible, because then the molecule would be left with less than the minimum amount that the laws of quantum physics require it to have."

originally posted by: mbkennel
I take that as evidence that the supposed ZPF is an unphysical mathematical artifact, i.e. a problem made up by humans formulating a problem poorly, and not physically real.

Exactly, it's a bad guess because we don't know how to properly solve for the correct answer. In the absence of being able to do the calculation, favoring the observed value of vacuum energy makes sense to me and doesn't contradict gravitational theory.

John Baez discusses five different values for Vacuum energy, each using different assumptions. The "enormous" value would be #3 as Baez has numbered the calculations, and he gives his reasons for preferring #1 and not believing the enormous value of #3:
What's the Energy Density of the Vacuum?

Let me run through the 5 most common answers, explaining how people reach these different answers:

Read the link for details, here's the summary:

I've given you 5 answers to the same question (What's the Energy Density of the Vacuum?):

1. VERY CLOSE TO ZERO
2. INFINITY
3. ENORMOUS BUT FINITE
4. ZERO
5. NOT DETERMINED

Which should you believe? I believe 1) because it is based on experiment and fairly conservative assumptions about general relativity and astronomy. Answers 2)-4) are based on somewhat naive theoretical calculations. Answer 5) is the best that quantum field theory can do right now. Reconciling answers 1) and 5) is one of the big tasks of any good theory of quantum gravity.

originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: BASSPLYR

arguing with quantum fields and ordering them to be classical is like negotiating with cats.

Bernard Haisch's idea to extract vacuum energy wasn't to order them to be classical, but it seems to me he was arguing with the quantum fields, and I don't have confidence he would win that argument.

A system is disclosed for converting energy from the electromagnetic quantum vacuum available at any point in the universe to usable energy in the form of heat, electricity, mechanical energy or other forms of power. By Suppressing electromagnetic quantum vacuum energy at appropriate frequencies a change may be effected in the electron energy levels which will result in the emission or release of energy.

www.scientificamerican.com...

Paul A. Deck, assistant professor of chemistry at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, gives a chemical perspective on this question:

"The zero-point energy cannot be harnessed in the traditional sense. The idea of zero-point energy is that there is a finite, minimum amount of motion (more accurately, kinetic energy) in all matter, even at absolute zero. For example, chemical bonds continue to vibrate in predictable ways. But releasing the energy of this motion is impossible, because then the molecule would be left with less than the minimum amount that the laws of quantum physics require it to have."

For what I can understand from the first message, this is exactly the point. It may happen (...) that quantum electrodynamics is limited to the electromagnetic field (not applicable to the gravitational field). ZPF simply appears in the formulas and is necessary for the theory to model reality.
ZPF may reside in the quantum vacuum or be a property of particles, who cares.
Anyway if we use an electromagnetic theory "that works perfectly" and that says that it is not possible to go below the lowest energy state (this is what can make all atoms stable...) , it means that no "electromagnetic" radiation can be emitted. This is what indeed happens in reality.
BUT if a magical trick is able to increase the frequencies and make the emission of gravitational waves possible, and we believe that gravity is not quantized (this is a simplification...), what will possibly happen is that gravitational waves will be emitted and the ground energy level (electromagnetic) of the system will be immediately replenisced electromagnetically. So we cannot extract electromagnetic energy but we could extract gravitational waves in a NON traditional sense.

originally posted by: Dineutron
BUT if a magical trick is able to increase the frequencies and make the emission of gravitational waves possible, and we believe that gravity is not quantized (this is a simplification...), what will possibly happen is that gravitational waves will be emitted and the ground energy level (electromagnetic) of the system will be immediately replenisced electromagnetically. So we cannot extract electromagnetic energy but we could extract gravitational waves in a NON traditional sense.

If gravitational waves were to be emittable then the 'whatever it is' would have to couple to gravitation statically, right? The fact that observed Universe does not have evidence of gravitational curvature resulting from any significant zero-point vacuum term is evidence to me that the zero-point vacuum doesn't couple to gravitation significantly.

So far as we can see gravitational wave coupling requires titanic black holes doing exotic stuff. I'd like it to be something else with a much stronger magnitude, but where is it? Wouldn't we have seen at least some astrophysical evidence of that mechanism?