Hi Bob, H-bar, derived from the reduced planck constant, is the quantum of elementary momentum - so it's very much the corporeal component of EM energy; the "stuff" that is traded between photons and charges, whatever the provenance of the photon in question, reconciling classical magnetic force with radiation pressure (per solar sailing), and the Casimir effect is no different, but for its source of photons.
You're right that virtual photons can effectively be rectified from vacuum via coherent oscillation - such results have actually been demonstrated in recent years, including mechanically (IIRC via a tiny reed fluttering at MHz). But there can be no suggestion h-bar is variable - it's a constant, after all. The energy of photons is a function of their wavelength (since the group velocity is C for all wavelengths), hence shorter wavelengths have higher frequency and thus energy/time. Thus the stronger an EMF, the higher the flux density of these quantised exchanges. All particles are composed of higher-dimensional "spin" polarisations of this elementary momentum field - for instance Pauli exclusion distinguishes fermions and baryonic matter from bosons (fields and forces) on the basis of integer and half-integer polarisations, for example combining two up-spin or down-spin electrons, all of which have 1/2 spin, produces a 1-spin boson - a Cooper pair - thus jumping the superposition-exclusion barrier. So the value of the quantum is as hard-wired as the ratios between physical gears. Likewise, the constancy of alpha has been verified to ~10e9 ly in all directions. Exactly how moving charges "summon" virtual photon flux is a fascinating issue in its own right (esp. in regards to CoE), but for that matter the classical explanation from relativistic effects (time compression between internal and external FoR's) is as compelling as the quantum view. Both arrive at perfect agreement, from completely different sets of first principles. In short though, it's the density (number / time) of interactions between charges that varies, not the value of the interaction itself. On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Bob Cook <[email protected]> wrote: > Vibrator-- > > Thanks for that clarification of ZPE. > > But how does Planck”s constant ( h ) come into the ZPE idea. Does that > constant have any basis with respect to a causal effect of the appearance > of virtual energy in the “real” 4-D measurable time and distance realm? > > It seems that you are suggesting that the virtual EM energy must be > invited to come into the “real” 4-D realm through the existence of a > resonant place—kind of like a friendly dance hall. And the friendliness of > the dance hall depends upon the local ghostly wave function going out of > existence in the real 4-D realm. > > In my mind that explanation is still pretty vague. What is needed is a > derivation of h. It seems to be measurable to a good degree per > Wikipedia. > > I tend to consider that there is a good explanation of h---that its not > just a constant with a random value in the 4-D realm. > > Bob Cook > > *From:* Vibrator ! <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Saturday, February 13, 2016 6:11 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Re: New application of uncertainty principle and > differential ZPE-- > > It's not ZPE that causes uncertainty, but the other way around! > > Due to the indeterminacy of wave function collapse there's a non-zero > chance of virtual photons of any wavelength precipitating out of vacuum at > any location.... that's the ZPE. > > Consider the twin-plate Casimir effect - there's two alternate > explanations usually given for the phenomenon: > > - the narrow space between the plates precludes virtual photons with more > than half that wavelength from manifesting within that confine, causing an > effective band gap in ZPE pressures inside vs outside the sandwich, and > hence a mechanical force. > > - alternatively, it is explained in terms of induction; the spontaneous > appearance and instantaneous disappearance of virtual photons induce > transient EMFs per Faraday which interact classically, producing the net > force. > > So either way, it is the indeterminacy of the wavefunction that gives a > latent energy to the EM field. > > It should also be remembered that virtual photons are the standard EM > mediator - the force between magnets, charges (ie. voltage), and likely > other forces too (W/Z and maybe even strong and gravity) have to be > accomodated in our reckonings of the ZPE density... after all, virtual > photons aren't "emitted" by charges, but simply coopted from the vacuum > potential. > > This illustrates the so-called vacuum catastrophe - the ZPE density needed > to explain the Casimir effect is very low, yet the same field also has to > be able to account for magnetars and millisecond pulsars etc., and > everything else between. > > The actual currency exchanged between charges in relative motion, via the > intermediary of virtual photons, is ambient momentum - the "spin" field, > quantised in signed units of h-bar. IOW the "stuff" of ZPE is ambient > momentum. So it DOES have a corporeal form, and can't just be a notional > abstraction as suggested by mere attribution to indeterminacy. It > delineates fermions from bosons, gives substance to matter.. it's a > fundamental and ubiquitous substrate. > > Hence the ZPE density could be a few millijoules per meter^3, or several > times the total thermodynamic energy of the universe per meter^3, depending > on whatever you need it to explain. > > To say Heisenberg's ignorance principle has a lot to answer for would be a > consomological understatement... and one reason alternatives like M-theory > are gaining traction. But until we have a QG theory, it's the best we have > (and also works brilliantly per QED, QCD etc).. > . > > On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 3:17 AM, Bob Cook <[email protected]> wrote: > >> That’s what I thought—it’s a pretty vague connection. >> >> Bob Cook >> >> *From:* Jones Beene <[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Friday, February 12, 2016 6:57 PM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:New application of uncertainty principle and >> differential ZPE-- >> >> >> *From:* Bob Cook >> >> Ø >> >> Ø Can any Vort explain the relation between ZPE and the Uncertainty >> Principle? >> >> >> >> >> Bob - You will probably find mostly anecdotes, since a physical >> connection between the two is strained. One relationship I found in a >> quick search is that the Uncertainty Principle defines the limits of the >> minimal >> thermal system at zero degrees in 3-space via the harmonic oscillator. For >> instance, helium should freeze solid at ambient pressure and zero >> degrees, but doesn’t. Granted, this at first seems to be little in the >> way of energy. >> >> BTW Helium does freeze at high pressure (and absolute zero). For >> Helium-4 it is ~2.5 MPa. The virtual photons which keep the electrons away >> from the nucleus apparently resist compression by a significant amount. >> If ZPE exerts a counter force of around 2.5 Mpa, and each atom has a >> volume of about 3x10^(-30) m^3, then there is a lot of force available >> in a tiny space - if anyone can figure out a way to convert it to energy. >> >> Here is another way (simpler) to express it. ZPE prevents physical >> systems from dropping to zero energy at zero temperature… and without a >> foundation at zero energy, there is no certainty in relative position (or >> any complementary variables). Stated that way, it looks like a close >> relationship. >> > >
