Text Size
Facebook Twitter More...

                                                                                     Static LNIFS Hawking's Picture Fig. 1.11 "The Universe in a Nutshell"
                                                                                     Baron Von Munchausen's LIF

On Mar 4, 2010, at 9:16 PM, nick herbert wrote:

"You're correct on this one, Jack. My picture of gravity and light sources is flat wrong. My career is strewn with dozens of failed models and proofs (and a very few solid ones.) However I still think the flaw in the HD proposal lies in not properly taking into account the energy it takes to move atoms in various states in and out of the Casimir Cavity."

Nick, I have not read the patent completely yet. So I have no firm opinion. However, Kim Burrafato has and he says, and I seem to recall, that Bernie and Garrett were quite aware of this issue and claim it's a small effect ~ milliwatts compared to the net energy gain in the model they contemplate of 200 to 2000 watts. Agreed this issue needs to be considered very carefully. Both you and David S seem to think it's a matter of basic principle whereas Bernie & Garrett think it's two fundamentally independent processes (as I tend to think at the moment - different degrees of freedom - CM vs internal motions).

On Mar 4, 2010, at 3:12 PM, nick herbert wrote:

"Here's another example where moving an excited atom from place A to place B changes the internal energy levels and is a potential Free Energy Source. An excited atom in a strong gravity field emits and is excited by LOWER FREQUENCY (red-shifted) photons than a similar atom in a weak gravity field."

Nick, I think your above statement is wrong - a misunderstanding of the gravity induced frequency shift from Einstein's principle of equivalence. As far as a local detector is concerned, any experiment in a small region of spacetime in any local frame independent of its velocity, acceleration, jerk, snap et-al will always show the same frequencies for the same transition types when source & detector are relatively at rest and close together << radii of curvature. The effect you claim above does not exist. It is a null effect not equivalent to the quantum vacuum phase transition assumed in the Haisch-Moddell patent. In other words, moving an excited atom from place to place in an arbitrary gravity field has no effect at all on the frequency of the emitted photon in local frames under identical local total experimental arrangements. It's only when you compare two photons from different locations in the gravity field from the same kind of transition that you see a difference.

"1. Excite the atom in high gravity field (say the surface of the Earth) with a low=energy photon."

Wait a minute - Bob is in the static LNIF Earth Surface Lab - let's consider for clarity a definite transition

"The hydrogen line, 21 centimeter line or HI line refers to the spectral line created by changes in the energy state of neutral hydrogen and occurs at a frequency of 1420.40575177 MHz, equivalent to a vacuum wavelength of around 21.10611405413 cm. This line falls within the radio region of the electromagnetic spectrum and is used extensively in astronomy, since it can penetrate dust clouds that are opaque to visible wavelengths. The radiation comprising the hydrogen line comes from the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the hydrogen 1sground state.[1] An electron orbiting a proton with parallel spins (pictured) has higher energy than if the spins were anti-parallel."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_line

Bob's detector display for the photon emitted radially up the Harvard Clock Tower says 1420.40575177 MHz Alice with identical equipment also a static LNIF see's Bob's photon slightly redshifted to a lower frequency. The equation for this is (c =1) for the photon that travels radially from Bob to Alice. Note the pair of ds's are the local atomic clock times of the static LNIF detectors not the proper time of the photon which is zero.

dt = ds(Bob)/(1 - 2MEarth/rBob)^-1/2 = ds(Alice)/(1 - 2MEarth/rAlice)^-1/2

In terms of frequencies f for these two static LNIFs

fAlice/fBob = [(1 - 2MEarth/rBob)/(1 - 2MEarth/rAlice)]^1/2

Now imagine - Alice is on a rocket ship as in Hawking's picture - still a static LNIF at fixed r firing rocket radially toward Earth below. Same formula applies. But next we have Baron Munchausen in a zero g-force LIF momentarily coincident with Alice The Baron in the LIF is equivalent to a static LNIF at r ---> infinity (zero gravity field), therefore

fAlice/fBaron = [1/(1 - 2MEarth/rAlice)]^1/2

Also, even though Bob & Baron are coincident if they exchange a photon

fBob/fBaron = [1/(1 - 2MEarth/rBob)]^1/2

However, my point is that locally any photon emitted in any frame accelerating or not from the given transition will still show the number 1420.40575177 MHz (in our example) in that lab - but other photons coming from emitters in different distant local frames will be generally frequency shifted away from 1420.40575177 MHz (either red or blue shifted depending)

 

"2. Move the excited atom to a lower gravity location (say low-Earth orbit).

3. The emitted photon will be higher energy than the photon that excited it."

This is not true Nick. In both cases the photon energy is e.g. 1420.40575177 MHz . The discrepancy is always when a local photon is compared to a distant photon - assuming both came from same kind of quantum jump. Therefore, in your example, there is zero energy difference according to the local detectors. Alice says she used a 1420.40575177 MHz photon to excite the atom that was moved down to Bob and Bob says a 1420.40575177 MHz  came out.  This is a different total experimental arrangement (Bohr) than the gravity red (or blue) shift experiment in which it's the photon (not the atom) that is moved into different regions of a gravitational field.

"4. Hence net energy gain.

5. Atom can be returned and recharged so the process is cyclic.

It's easy to see why this is an impractical Free Energy Device. Any energy increase is more than compensated by the work needed to lift the excited atom into orbit. Similarly with the HM scheme. The work needed to insert and remove atoms with various levels of excitation from the cavity needs to be factored into the equation. You cannot simply assume this work is zero."

I don't think Bernie and Garrett did assume that work was zero. They do seem to think it's only a small correction to their main effect. In any case, I think your analogy is not good here - the experiment you describe is not isomorphic to the experiment they describe.

Nick, I am not saying I know that the Haisch-Moddell proposal will definitely work - but so far so good, it's still in the running as far as I know at this moment - I think, but I am not sure. For the record, your "failed" Flash led to the no-cloning theorem  - Nick's greatest blunder! ;-)

1.              Nick Herbert ... no-cloning theorem. See How the No-cloning Theorem Got its Name by Asher Peres. ...usps://usa.ca/95006.bouldercreek/box261/nick.herbert quanta@cruzio. com.?www2.cruzio.com/~quanta/nick.html - Cached - Similar - 

2.              How the no-cloning theorem got its name I was the referee who approved the publication of Nick Herbert's FLASH paper, ... theno-cloning theorem was no justification for rejecting Herbert's paper. ...?doi.wiley.com/10.1002/prop.200310062 - Similar - 

3.              [quant-ph/0205076] How the no-cloning theorem got its name by A Peres - 2002 - Cited by 4 - Related articles May 14, 2002 ... Title: How the no-cloning theorem got its name ... Abstract: I was the referee who approved the publication of Nick Herbert's FLASH paper, ...?arxiv.org › quant-ph - Cached - Similar - 

4.              arXiv:quant-ph/0205076v1 14 May 2002 by A Peres - 2002 - Cited by 4 - Related articles I was the referee who approved the publication of Nick Herbert's FLASH ... The no-cloning theorem [1, 2] is of fundamental importance in quantum theory. ...?arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0205076 - 


6.              Show more results from arxiv.org

7.              QUANTUM TANTRA: New Law of Nature Feb 6, 2009 ... The FLASH concept was refuted by William Wooters & Wojciech Zurek ... On the other hand, the no-cloning theorem proves itself useful in the ... Posted by nick herbertat 9:11 AM. Labels: no wedding, no-cloning, physics ...?quantumtantra.blogspot.com/2009/.../new-law-of-nature.html - Cached - Similar - 

8.              QUANTUM TANTRA: February 2009 Posted by nick herbert at 1:11 PM 2 comments .... machine (FTL communicator based on a hypothetical quantum cloning device) that I called FLASH. ... On the other hand, theno-cloning theorem proves itself useful in the design of quantum ...?quantumtantra.blogspot.com/2009_02_01_archive.html - Cached - 

9.              CERN Document Server: Record#551453: How the no-cloning theorem ... by A Peres - Cited by 4 - Related articles I was the referee who approved the publication of Nick Herbert's FLASH paper, ... Title, How the no-cloning theorem got its name. Author(s), Peres, A ...?cdsweb.cern.ch/record/551453 - Cached - 

10.           How the no-cloning theorem got its name by A Peres - 2003 - Cited by 4 - Related articles How the no-cloning theorem got its name. Authors: Peres, A. Publication: ... I was the referee who approved the publication of Nick Herbert's FLASH paper, ...?adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ForPh..51..458P - 

11.           Star Drive Discussion Group - History of PCRG Indeed Nick Herbert's FLASH paper led to the no-cloning theorem so important in quantum computing today. Antony Valentini's papers ...?disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?disc=68326;article=3167; - Cached - 

12.           [PDF] ?Diapositiva 1 File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML No cloning theorem: “It is not possible to clone an arbitrary unknown quantum ..... FLASHproposal: faster than light comunication? 1981 Nick Herbert ...?www.cqed.org/college/2010/CollegeDeFrance-Sciarrino-15Fevrier.pdf

On Mar 3, 2010, at 5:05 PM, Bernard Haisch wrote:

“Consider again the thought experiment below. Assume for simplicity's sake that all the hydrogen electrons are excited into the n=2 state outside the pipe. Some pressure is applied to push the hydrogen gas through the pipe and out the other side. Inside the pipe some of the electrons will de-excite to the n=1 level, some will not and remain in n=2. I see no reason why there should be any difference between the flow rate of the two populations. Being pressure forced through the pipe and de-exciting (or not) are completely unrelated processes.

A thought experiment clarifying the Haisch-Moddel patent (7,379,286) concept:

Imagine a monatomic hydrogen gas exposed to Lyman-alpha radiation at 121.5 nm which excites the electron into the n=2 level. Now let some of the gas enter a pipe which blocks the radiation. The hydrogen electron will drop back to the ground state, n=1. We can certainly capture the emitted radiation in the pipe. On exiting the pipe the hydrogen is again exposed to Lyman-alpha radiation and the electron is excited into the n=2 level again.

 

The process is easily done but not useful because we are simply capturing some of the energy we put there in creating the Lyman-alpha radiation. However this clearly shows that there is no correlation between the electron energy levels and any kind of potential energy relevant to motion into and out of the pipe. The excitation and de-excitation do not produce any forces pulling the hydrogen into or out of the pipe. They are independent processes.

 

Substitute zero-point radiation for Lyman-alpha and a Casimir cavity for the pipe and assume that because of the Casimir suppression of zero-point radiation there is a temporary reduction in the ground state of the atomic electron (as shown by Puthoff and by Cole) while in the cavity and you have the proposed patent. (Note that this does not produce any so-called stable hydrinos.)”

 

Bernard Haisch

------------------------------------------------

So, Nick where specifically do you disagree with Bernie's remark below? What sentences he wrote do you think are wrong? Best way to settle this is with the math. I am not sure if Nick's spin example is a good analogy with what Haisch & Moddell propose. I think Bernie's point is that the work needed to overcome the ZPF energy barrier in the two different vacuum phases inside and outside the cavity is for the center of mass of the atom. In contrast the energy gain they are talking about is in the internal electron orbital shift and that the two degrees of freedom are essentially decoupled. In order for their scheme to work however, you and David make a valid point that the alleged internal orbital zpf energy shift gain must be larger than the work done on the CM degree of freedom it getting the atoms back out of the cavity in their circulating "heat exchanger" sort of design. Off hand, I see no fundamental reason for assuming that the CM work and the orbital el! ectron shift must add to zero always. But I have not thought very deeply about this.

 

Begin forwarded message:

 

From: nick herbert <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

'; document.getElementById('cloak52050').innerHTML += ''+addy_text52050+''; //--> >This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
'; document.getElementById('cloak4768').innerHTML += ''+addy_text4768+''; //--> >

 

Date: March 3, 2010 12:24:05 PM PST

 

To: JACK SARFATTI <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

'; document.getElementById('cloak69673').innerHTML += ''+addy_text69673+''; //--> >This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
'; document.getElementById('cloak52342').innerHTML += ''+addy_text52342+''; //--> >

Subject: [Starfleet Command] Re: Basic Flaw in Haisch-Moddell Patent ZPF Vacuum Energy Generator?

“David Sarfatti is spot on. A nice concise refutation of the Haisch-Moddell ZPF Proposal. One can build a simpler version of HM that has the same flaw. Send a properly spin oriented beam of excited atoms into a uniform magnetic field such that the Zeeman splitting puts the atoms in a slightly lower energy state. Mechanism is the same. So is the flaw. Any energy you get from increased photon energy due to Zeeman splitting you will lose by the work done extracting the atoms from the magnetic field.’

Nick Herbert

On Mar 2, 2010, at 11:09 AM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

Force ~ negative spatial gradient of the potential energy

On Mar 2, 2010, at 10:52 AM, David S wrote:

‘Here is the fallacy with the Haisch patent, I believe : Since the atoms of the gas are in a lower energy state within the Casimir cavity, they are, in effect, in an energy well. Hence, they will experience a net force causing them to remain in the cavity. The energy required to remove them from the cavity will be exactly balanced by the net gain from the ambient ZPF. Of course , additional frictional losses will lead to a net negative gain in energy rendering the invention useless as a free energy source.”

 

These are the logs of the starship NCC-1701-280Z.  Its five-year mission to seek out new minds, new quantum realms.  To boldly explore physics where no physicist  has gone before (in physical, virtual, or quantum worlds)!

 

Starmind(tm) -- Your daily journal to the industry's brightest stars.  You get infinite knowledge only with Starmind:

 

All hits.  All Physics. All the time.  And now in parallel and diverging universes.  (Thus proving they don't exist as separate entities --But have we gotten to them yet or not?)

 

Category: MyBlog

Categories ...

't Hooft 100 Year Star Ship Abner Shimony accelerometers action-reaction principle Aephraim Sternberg Alan Turing Albert Einstein Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer American Institute of Physics Andrija Puharich Anthony Valentin Anton Zeilinger Antony Valentini anyon Apple Computer Artificial Intelligence Asher Peres Back From The Future Basil Hiley Bell's theorem Ben Affleck Ben Libet Bernard Carr Bill Clinton black body radiation Black Hole black hole firewall black hole information paradox black holes Bohm brain waves Brian Josephson Broadwell Cambridge University Carnot Heat Engine Central Intelligence Agency CIA Clive Prince closed time like curves coherent quantum state Consciousness conservation laws Cosmic Landscape Cosmological Constant cosmology CTC cyber-bullying Dancing Wu Li Masters Dark Energy Dark Matter DARPA Daryl Bem David Bohm David Deutsch David Gross David Kaiser David Neyland David Tong de Sitter horizon Dean Radin Deepak Chopra delayed choice Demetrios A. Kalamidas Demetrios Kalamidas Dennis Sciama Destiny Matrix Dick Bierman Doppler radars E8 group Einstein's curved spacetime gravity Einstein's happiest thought electromagnetism Eli Cartan EMP Nuclear Attack entanglement signals ER=EPR Eric Davis Ernst Mach ET Eternal Chaotic Inflation evaporating black holes Facebook Faster-Than-Light Signals? fictitious force firewall paradox flying saucers FQXi Frank Tipler Frank Wilczek Fred Alan Wolf Free Will G.'t Hooft Garrett Moddel Gary Zukav gauge theory general relativity Geometrodynamics Gerard 't Hooft Giancarlo Ghirardi God Goldstone theorem gravimagnetism gravity Gravity - the movie gravity gradiometers gravity tetrads Gravity Waves Gregory Corso gyroscopes hacking quantum cryptographs Hagen Kleinert Hal Puthoff Hawking radiation Heisenberg Henry Stapp Herbert Gold Higgs boson Higgs field hologram universe Horizon How the Hippies Saved Physics I.J. Good ICBMs Igor Novikov inertial forces inertial navigation Inquisition Internet Iphone Iran Isaac Newton Israel Jack Sarfatti Jacques Vallee James F. Woodward James Woodward JASON Dept of Defense Jeffrey Bub Jesse Ventura Jim Woodward John Archibald Wheeler John Baez John Cramer John S. Bell Ken Peacock Kip Thorne Kornel Lanczos La Boheme Laputa Large Hadron Collider Lenny Susskind Leonard Susskind Levi-Civita connection LHC CERN libel Louis de Broglie Lubos Motl LUX Lynn Picknett M-Theory Mach's Principle Mae Jemison Making Starships and Star Gates Martin Rees Mathematical Mind MATRIX Matter-AntiMatter Asymmetry Max Tegmark Menas Kafatos Michael Persinger Michael Towler microtubules Milky way MIT MOSSAD multiverse NASA Nick Bostrum Nick Herbert Nobel Prize nonlocality Obama organized-stalking Origin of Inertia P. A. M. Dirac P.K.Dick P.W. Anderson Paranormal parapsychology Paul Werbos Perimeter Institute Petraeus Physical Review Letters Physics Today Post-Quantum Physics pre-Big Bang precognition presponse PSI WARS Psychic Repression qualia Quantum Chromodynamics quantum computers quantum entanglement quantum field theory quantum gravity Quantum Information Theory Quantum Theory RAF Spitfires Ray Chiao Red Chinese Remote Viewing retrocausality Reviews of Modern Physics Richard Feynman Richard P. Feynman Rindler effect Robert Anton Wilson Robert Bigelow Roger Penrose rotating black holes Roy Glauber Rupert Sheldrake Russell Targ Ruth Elinor Kastner S-Matrix Sagnac effect Sam Ting Sanford Underground Research Facility Sarfatti Lectures in Physics Scientific American Second Law of Thermodynamics Seth Lloyd signal nonlocality Skinwalker Ranch social networks space drive space-time crystal SPECTRA - UFO COMPUTER spontaneous broken symmetry SRI Remote Viewing Experiments Stanford Physics Stanford Research Institute Star Gate Star Ship Star Trek Q Stargate Starship Stephen Hawking Steven Weinberg stretched membrane string theory strong force gluons Stuart Hameroff superconducting meta-material supersymmetry symmetries telepathy Templeton The Guardian Thought Police time crystal time travel topological computers Topological Computing torsion UFO Unitarity unitary S-Matrix false? Unruh effect Uri Geller VALIS virtual particle Virtual Reality Warp Drive weak force Wheeler-Feynman WIMP WMAP WMD world crystal lattice wormhole Yakir Aharonov Yuri Milner