I rant about it here.
http://expandingearth.freeforums.net/th ... net-growth
Observed for 50 years in the lab, plasmoids are the end result of Ampere's Law compressing electricity into very small volumes. the resultant electromagnetic fields are extreme, far stronger than any other field known. micro plasmoids are expected to occur after any powerful electric discharge including natural ones, such as lightning. These plamoids are a natural environment for nuclear fusion to take place. This could also be taking place within the Earth en-mass.
Above a threshold, vacuum fluctuations are given enough energy by the electric field to become real. This is the same idea as used by S. Hawking, but he used a gravity field around a black hole. Vacuum virtual energy density is theorized to be extremely dense, on the order of 10^100 J / m^3.
No other mechanism can grow the Earth by 2 million tons a second every second ( 45% suns radiant output ) . An off-planet source of such mass-energy travelling into the Earth would be very noticeable. Therefore I ruled out particle or electrical streams into the Earth. Although I accept those things happen, and are likely related to the actual growth mechanism.
What you think?
Vacuum Energy Extraction via Plasmoids
Re: Vacuum Energy Extraction via Plasmoids
I guess you refer to the Z-pinch effect?meemoe_uk » Sat Dec 27, 2014 6:55 pm wrote:I rant about it here.
http://expandingearth.freeforums.net/th ... net-growth
Observed for 50 years in the lab, plasmoids are the end result of Ampere's Law compressing electricity into very small volumes.
Ok, this is the hot fusion that becomes possible due to the very high temperature reached by the plasma. So you are referring to the Z-pinch effect.meemoe_uk » Sat Dec 27, 2014 6:55 pm wrote: the resultant electromagnetic fields are extreme, far stronger than any other field known. micro plasmoids are expected to occur after any powerful electric discharge including natural ones, such as lightning. These plamoids are a natural environment for nuclear fusion to take place. This could also be taking place within the Earth en-mass.
I perceive an incoherence in your description or a langage issue.meemoe_uk » Sat Dec 27, 2014 6:55 pm wrote: Above a threshold, vacuum fluctuations are given enough energy by the electric field to become real. This is the same idea as used by S. Hawking, but he used a gravity field around a black hole. Vacuum virtual energy density is theorized to be extremely dense, on the order of 10^100 J / m^3.
In quantum field theory, the quantum vacuum is actually made of fields, the electromagnetic field (EM field) being one of them, and these fields fluctuate. OK.
So, when you write that "vacuum fluctuations are given energy by the electric field to become real", I read "fluctuations in the EM field are given energy by the EM field to form particles. See the problem?
I can agree that the source must be huge and cannot be made of matter particles (electrons, quarks...) because it would be noticeable. But it is not possible to exclude a source of exotic particles that would not be noticeable because they weakly interact with the field we know...meemoe_uk » Sat Dec 27, 2014 6:55 pm wrote: No other mechanism can grow the Earth by 2 million tons a second every second ( 45% suns radiant output ) . An off-planet source of such mass-energy travelling into the Earth would be very noticeable. Therefore I ruled out particle or electrical streams into the Earth. Although I accept those things happen, and are likely related to the actual growth mechanism.
What you think?
If 50 million believe in a fallacy, it is still a fallacy. Sam W Carey
Re: Vacuum Energy Extraction via Plasmoids
Hi Florian, yes your right its the Z-pinch. The EU universe people often talk about Z-pinches, but they rarely mention one of the of a Z-pinch end results - the micro plasmoid. Only the focus fusion community immerse themselves in that, Eric Lerner has the best lectures on them.
>I perceive an incoherence in your description or a langage issue.
Yes I didn't word it quite correctly. I meant virtual particle pairs, those of the ubiquitous 'sea' of virtual particles that exists thruout all space are given enough energy to become real by the extreme electric fields associated with micro-plasmoids which themselves are caused by powerful electric discharges such as lightning.
> But it is not possible to exclude a source of exotic particles that would not be noticeable because they weakly interact with the field we know...
This idea being that weakly interacting particles are sneaking past our surface detectors into the Earth and them condensing into real matter once deep in the interior.
I've heard a candidate for growing the Earth via injection weakly interact exotic particles is the neutrino.
I'm sceptical of this theory because it stems too much from the mania of invoking convenient theoretical particles with convenient physics to explain discrepancies between observation and theory. This practice became popular after the positron was discovered after 1st being predicted by theory. But the track record of theorists after that for predicting particles was poor. Gravitons, tachyons, inflatons, gluons, dark matter, dark energy, higgs boson, are all exotic stuff cooked on the assumption that existing theory is correct, but there is undetectable bizarre matter with bizarre physics which cause discrepancy between theory and observation.
In other words the credibility surrounding the 'if standard theory can't explain it, cook up an exotic particle to do what needs to be done ' method is far too low to be favoured.
Real exotic particles are usually very short lived products of high energy events ( e.g. particle accelerators tests ) and don't have any detectable bizarre physics, but rather just odd amounts of mass and electric charge.
So why should my electric field extraction vacuum energy theory be more scientifically principled than any weakly interacting exotic particle injection theory? Doesn't it fail some principle by similar reasoning?
1st, consider that the critical quantum field - the field required to turn virtual particles into real particles on which my theory of growing Earth is based, was not an ad-hoc attempt to explain some discrepancy between theory and observation. Instead it was theorised simply as a result of theorists exploring quantum theory.
2nd, the theory doesn't require any new theoretical particles
3rd, unlike new particles that inherently require new physics, my theory it doesn't require new physics, but just the use of existing rules and physics already worked out based on existing rules.
So by Occam's razor, my theory is to be preferred over exotic particle theory !
I've argued in my rants on my forum the neutrino has become an overburdened donkey in theoretical physics. The community is in a bad habit of saying anything that doesn't add up is explained by cooking up some new physics of neutrinos which is then extremely hard to disprove because neutrinos are weakly interactive so only very limited direct tests can be done on them.
>I perceive an incoherence in your description or a langage issue.
Yes I didn't word it quite correctly. I meant virtual particle pairs, those of the ubiquitous 'sea' of virtual particles that exists thruout all space are given enough energy to become real by the extreme electric fields associated with micro-plasmoids which themselves are caused by powerful electric discharges such as lightning.
> But it is not possible to exclude a source of exotic particles that would not be noticeable because they weakly interact with the field we know...
This idea being that weakly interacting particles are sneaking past our surface detectors into the Earth and them condensing into real matter once deep in the interior.
I've heard a candidate for growing the Earth via injection weakly interact exotic particles is the neutrino.
I'm sceptical of this theory because it stems too much from the mania of invoking convenient theoretical particles with convenient physics to explain discrepancies between observation and theory. This practice became popular after the positron was discovered after 1st being predicted by theory. But the track record of theorists after that for predicting particles was poor. Gravitons, tachyons, inflatons, gluons, dark matter, dark energy, higgs boson, are all exotic stuff cooked on the assumption that existing theory is correct, but there is undetectable bizarre matter with bizarre physics which cause discrepancy between theory and observation.
In other words the credibility surrounding the 'if standard theory can't explain it, cook up an exotic particle to do what needs to be done ' method is far too low to be favoured.
Real exotic particles are usually very short lived products of high energy events ( e.g. particle accelerators tests ) and don't have any detectable bizarre physics, but rather just odd amounts of mass and electric charge.
So why should my electric field extraction vacuum energy theory be more scientifically principled than any weakly interacting exotic particle injection theory? Doesn't it fail some principle by similar reasoning?
1st, consider that the critical quantum field - the field required to turn virtual particles into real particles on which my theory of growing Earth is based, was not an ad-hoc attempt to explain some discrepancy between theory and observation. Instead it was theorised simply as a result of theorists exploring quantum theory.
2nd, the theory doesn't require any new theoretical particles
3rd, unlike new particles that inherently require new physics, my theory it doesn't require new physics, but just the use of existing rules and physics already worked out based on existing rules.
So by Occam's razor, my theory is to be preferred over exotic particle theory !
I've argued in my rants on my forum the neutrino has become an overburdened donkey in theoretical physics. The community is in a bad habit of saying anything that doesn't add up is explained by cooking up some new physics of neutrinos which is then extremely hard to disprove because neutrinos are weakly interactive so only very limited direct tests can be done on them.
Re: Vacuum Energy Extraction via Plasmoids
I still have a problem with that. Could you develop a bit? I mean, if the energy was coming from the EM field, that would be huge to forme particles. How could we miss it?Florian » Tue Dec 30, 2014 2:18 am wrote: So, when you write that "vacuum fluctuations are given energy by the electric field to become real", I read "fluctuations in the EM field are given energy by the EM field to form particles. See the problem?
You seem not to like much neutrinos
I mean there are solid experiments that prove their existence: https://icecube.wisc.edu/outreach/neutrinos
If 50 million believe in a fallacy, it is still a fallacy. Sam W Carey
Re: Vacuum Energy Extraction via Plasmoids
Are you familiar with the concept of hawking radiation? -The gravity of a blackhole is theorized to pull 'zero-point energy' anti-particle pairs from the vacuum apart.
This is acceptable by quantum physics, as long as the gravity field is strong enough. Personally I don't think there is a gravity field strong enough to do this, and I don't think black holes exist.
However I think the idea of Hawking radiation does work in the case of an electric field instead of a gravity field. The electric field is 10^42 times more powerful than gravity. The strength of an electric field required to pull zero-point energy anti particles apart is 1.6E18 Volts / Metre (iirc).
Such an electric field could occur frequently in micro plasmoids, which themselves could occur frequently around powerful electric discharges within stars, planets and moons.
a) it happens at a very small scale, both in time and space ( inside a micro plasmoid, which tend to be a few microns in diameter )
b) a lot of it happens underground, around electric discharges, deep in the interiors of celestial bodies.
Yes, the field has to be extremely strong. But the potential energy of the field is just to pull the anti particles apart. In the case of a successful particle pair being pulled apart, the electric accelerates to the anode and the positron accelerates to the cathode and they discharge field \ lower its potential energy. If the particle were real to begin with then it would be a zero sum energy event, i.e nothing lost nothing gained. However, zero point particle pairs are virtual, and while the electric potential energy is conserved when the particles split apart and go to voltage sources, the mass is not conserved, The real universe gains mass. It's mass-energy from nothing.
I expect you've heard something about zero point energy. It's become a modern day philosophers stone on the internet, as it hints at a possibility of unlocking an inexhaustible supply of concentrated energy. It's actually the only way of creating mass out of nothing that abides the laws quantum physics, therefore since we see matter in the universe, it must have happened. And I think it still goes on now in the form of growing celestial bodies, and will continue indefinitely.
google search zero point energy
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0604101
This is acceptable by quantum physics, as long as the gravity field is strong enough. Personally I don't think there is a gravity field strong enough to do this, and I don't think black holes exist.
However I think the idea of Hawking radiation does work in the case of an electric field instead of a gravity field. The electric field is 10^42 times more powerful than gravity. The strength of an electric field required to pull zero-point energy anti particles apart is 1.6E18 Volts / Metre (iirc).
Such an electric field could occur frequently in micro plasmoids, which themselves could occur frequently around powerful electric discharges within stars, planets and moons.
We miss it because...if the energy was coming from the EM field, that would be huge to forme particles. How could we miss it?
a) it happens at a very small scale, both in time and space ( inside a micro plasmoid, which tend to be a few microns in diameter )
b) a lot of it happens underground, around electric discharges, deep in the interiors of celestial bodies.
Yes, the field has to be extremely strong. But the potential energy of the field is just to pull the anti particles apart. In the case of a successful particle pair being pulled apart, the electric accelerates to the anode and the positron accelerates to the cathode and they discharge field \ lower its potential energy. If the particle were real to begin with then it would be a zero sum energy event, i.e nothing lost nothing gained. However, zero point particle pairs are virtual, and while the electric potential energy is conserved when the particles split apart and go to voltage sources, the mass is not conserved, The real universe gains mass. It's mass-energy from nothing.
I expect you've heard something about zero point energy. It's become a modern day philosophers stone on the internet, as it hints at a possibility of unlocking an inexhaustible supply of concentrated energy. It's actually the only way of creating mass out of nothing that abides the laws quantum physics, therefore since we see matter in the universe, it must have happened. And I think it still goes on now in the form of growing celestial bodies, and will continue indefinitely.
google search zero point energy
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0604101
Re: Vacuum Energy Extraction via Plasmoids
I accept neutrinos exist.You seem not to like much neutrinos
But i think these poorly understood particles are used too much to explain all manner of physics we don't yet understand.