View Full Version : Is the universe a Zero-Point Casimir Force illusion?

2002-Jan-18, 08:38 AM

2002-Jan-18, 01:37 PM
Sounds as if we're back to the ether again. And how does this tie in with the (theoretical) Higgs boson, which is supposed to be the source of mass?

2002-Jan-18, 03:18 PM
It seems that this could explain several things that have been bugging cosmologists for a long time. It might even be a source of the accelerating Hubble constant.

VEEEEEERY interesting! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

2002-Jan-19, 05:29 AM
Dunash, and others: a thread previously posted has some additional references to Haisch and Rueda's paper.
[Addendum: Aw, darn, I screwed up the address. Try this link: Machian inertia (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=103&forum=1&11)]

Don Stahl

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DStahl on 2002-01-20 17:11 ]</font>

2002-Jan-21, 08:11 PM
1) the observation of "quantum gravitational states" supports the aether model; or 2) the article by Bernhard Haisch supports the aether model.

Firstly, the experimental observation of quantized (preferred) gravitational states (or levels) is a step toward some kind of aether model (although not one in itself) because the demonstration of a direct relationship between atomic quantum effects mediated by the electromagnetic force and "planetary scale" (that is, astronomical scale) quantum effects mediated by gravitation satisfies a few necessary conditions that must exist if an aether model is to be consistent with observation. One such condition is that gravitation exist as an actual force and not as a pseudo-force as currently interpreted in General Relativity Theory (GRT). This re-interpretation of gravity changes the Strong Equivalence Principle of GRT from one of gravitation in an inertial rest-frame being "equivalent" to acceleration of an inertial mass to one of gravitation being an actual acceleration due to a real force acting upon matter (just as an electrical charge acts with a real force upon other electrical charges). Obviously, this re-interpretation also restores the concept of "space-time" from its 4-dimensional "real" existence to its original mathematical existence as a computational tool -- eliminating all the time-travel stuff along with it. Another condition which must exist if aether models are to be viable physical theories is that the aether medium act consistently upon matter at both the sub-atomic as well as the cosmological scales. The observation of gravitation acting in a "quantized" manner upon an atomic particle is a step toward realizing this second condition because it shows a common link between the two scales that could be due to the existence of a common medium -- an aether -- affecting matter in the same manner at both scales.

It could be taken to mean that the article by B. Haisch supports the notion of an aether medium. I have some reservations here because his 1994 paper (in collaboration with Alfonso Rueda and Hal Puthoff) was extremely complicated mathematically, made favorable approximations at every step while knowing what the end-result should work out to be, and reached a final result that was still some 30% off. There is also the improbable side-effect of the Stochastic ElectroDynamics (SED) model they use that the "polarized vacuum" which results "anti-gravitates" (this AFAIU results from the symmetry of the model and is comparable to the matter/anti-matter symmetry of the Standard Model). This unwanted effect means (among other things) that anti-matter would be expected to "anti-gravitate" -- an effect which (if I am not mistaken) has been shown not to occur. In fairness, I have not read the 1998 Haisch-Rueda paper (H. Puthoff has gone on to look for UFO superluminal propulsion mechanisms to help justify his Scientology beliefs) and they may have solved the earlier problems. But I do not think a "polarized vacuum" comprised of charged "virtual particles" (as I recall they called them "partons"), while seemingly a fruitful approach in explaining the equivalence of inertial with gravitational mass, helps to explain the physical basis of gravitation itself. Consequently, as I understand it, the SED formalism appears to be an ad hoc theoretical approach that addresses only the one phenomenon, that of inertial mass, and may actually be an obfuscation of what the aether might really be.

Here is a reference to an approach which utilizes a "polarized vacuum" to explain gravitation -- but in a way slightly different from Haisch et al. It is:

"Gauge Transformations of the Electromagnetic Vacuum States:
The 'Back Road' to Quantum Gravity," by Todd Desiato.

"In this paper we quantize the Polarizable Vacuum model, which is a metric theory of Gravitation consistent with General Relativity, and show that it is also consistent with Quantum Electrodynamics. It is shown that gauge invariance of the spectral energy density of the zero point electromagnetic vacuum field leads to quantization of the volume element in R^3 in terms of the gauge variable, which is the number of photons in the frequency modes of the vacuum field. This simple procedure eliminates the infinite zero point energy of the free-space electromagnetic vacuum field, and it's affects on the cosmological constant of General Relativity. Our conjecture is that this is a new interpretation of QED and that General Relativity may be described by a holographic representation of the space-time manifold, which refracts waves while maintaining a constant speed of light relative to local observers. The waves we refer to are the probability amplitudes which are wave function solutions of the Dirac and Maxwell fields of QED, for large numbers of particles. The intent of this paper is to illustrate the means by which the energy density of an electromagnetic field can curve space-time to give us gravity."

If you are interested, this paper is temporarily posted at:
http://www.todds.info/gaugex/gtevs.pdf .

Lastly, there may be a common element to most of the aether models proposed to date. They all seem to posit the existence of an underlying spatial medium which is composed of one sort of sub-atomic particle or other. But if an aether model is to be consistent with the record of G-d's creative activity in the Genesis account, then we must consider the first few verses carefully. Genesis states that three conditions were present "in the beginning:" the earth [that is, matter] was without form and void; darkness was upon the faces of the deep; and G-d moved upon the face of the waters. The first condition suggests that matter did not exist before G-d's creative activity began on Day One. The second condition suggests that "light" also did not exist before Day One. But the third condition suggests that a "deep" did exist before Day One and that this "deep" is composed of unspecified "waters." Thus, when G-d began to create the universe, there existed a primordial "deep" composed of "waters" which served as the raw material out of which the material universe was formed. The statement that "G-d moved upon the face of the waters" suggests that G-d imparted controlled force and energy to these "waters" in order to initiate the creation of "light" during Day One. If this is a correct reading of the Genesis creation account, then the "waters of the deep" is the "aether" out of which, and in which, all matter subsists. This means that the "aether" -- whatever it is -- is an immaterial substance and, as such, any hypothetical model which proposes an aether comprised of some type of sub-atomic matter cannot be consistent with the Genesis record. In other words, if we accept the Genesis account as true, then the current aether models are "barking up the wrong tree."

Hope this clarifies somewhat why the observation of quantum gravitational states is so important. We may be witnessing scientific history in the making.