From: The Big Bang never happened.

Posted - 30 Dec 2005 : 10:33:01


Meanwhile, in 1987 Hal Puthof published the paper which shows that the ground state of the electron derives its radiative energy from the ZPF, the Inside of space.

Think about it, an atom is not an inert bit of stuff, it is a fast moving process, and in the process creates fields which have entropy

and that means electrons would stop unless they were supplied with an energy to replace what it needs to move around for billions and bilions of years.

A lot of absurd things are written about the zero point field. Here is the right concept:

The old theory of the modes, set for acoustics applies to electromagnetic waves: In the vacuum, Maxwell's equations are linear, so that any linear combination of solutions (with constant real coefficients) is a solution, therefore all solutions are represented as vectors of a vector space. A mode is a ray of this space, that is a somplete set of proportional solutions. Thus, the fields in a given mode depend only on a parameter, the amplitude.

In his theory, Planck found a relation between the temperature and the energy in a mode, within an additive constant for the energy. Nernst corrected his wrong value for this constant: the amplitude in a monochromatic mode at 0K corresponds to a mean energy h(nu)/2, the zero point energy. It is an ordinary energy although it cannot be extracted from the field. If the temperature is not 0K, there is no zero point energy, but an absorption cannot extract the zero point energy, it cannot decrease the amplitude in the mode down to zero.

The electron turning around a proton radiates a field, but it does not radiate any energy because the interference between the zero point field and the emitted field does not increase the energy of the external field, provided that Lamb's correction be done.

Posted - 03 Jan 2006 : 03:07:34

quote:Originally posted by Tommy

By far the most intriguing result of these initial studies was the suggestion that galaxy redshifts take on preferred or "quantized" values. First revealed in the Coma Cluster redshift vs. brightness diagram, it appeared as if redshifts were in some way analogous to the energy levels within atoms.

These discoveries led to the suspicion that a galaxy's redshift may not be related to its Hubble velocity alone. If the redshift is entirely or partially non-Doppler (that is, not due to cosmic expansion), then it could be an intrinsic property of a galaxy, as basic a characteristic as its mass or luminosity. If so, might it truly be quantized?

People working with lasers study a lot of light matter interactions, in particular "parametric effects" which are coherent (that is the wave surfaces remain clean, no blurring of the images) and do not change permanently the state of the matter (the refraction is the simplest parametric interaction; the other require several beams). Obtaining these effects (frequency multiplication, frequency combinations...) requires generally complicated experiments, for instance getting the same wavelengths for two frequencies by the use of a crystal. But simple experiments are obtained using "ultrashort light pulses". This means usually femtosecond pulses, but the definition of ultrashort pulses given by G. L. Lamb Jr is "shorter than all relevant time constants", so that ordinary incoherent light may be considered as made of ultrashort pulses if the "relevant time constants" are longer than the time-incoherence of ordinary light, some nanoseconds. This requires a low pressure gas, and a resonance whose period is larger than some nanoseconds, that is a frequency of the order of 100 MHz. It is very difficult to find such a resonance in a well polulated state of a molecule. In astrophysics, it seems that only neutral atomic hydrogen in states 2S and 2P (say H*) works.

Where the physico-chemical conditions allow the presence of H* on the path of the light, there are anomalous frequency shifts; these conditions are:

i) Temperature T > 100 000 K and sufficient pressure. Works close to the kernel of the quasars.

ii) T > 10 000 K and Lyman alpha pumping to the 2P state. It is the most common case : works close to the quasars (very red objects, Arp's observations ... Explains the Lyman forest of the quasars. Who remarked that the fundamental periodicity 0.062 is found in the spectrum of hydrogen, the redshifts which puts the Ly beta and gamma lines to the alpha being 3*0062 and 4*0.062 respectively ?

iii) Cooling of a plasma of hydrogen (for instance solar wind : explains the "anomalous acceleration" of the Pioneer 10 and 11 probes by a transfer of energy from the solar light to the microwaves. Explains that the anisotropy of the "CMB" is bound to the ecliptic)

iv) Raman pumping in the symbiotic stars.

Try this magic stick !

Posted - 06 Jan 2006 : 02:24:54

quote:Originally posted by Tommy

Interestingly, no one has any plausible idea what gravity is.

Newton wrote he did not make hypothesis...

Science looks for laws of the nature, but knows that there are limits for our knowledge although this knowledge increases.

The main rule of science is being coherent:

1- All consequences of well verified science must be taken into account. In its foundation BB postulates that the origin of the observed redshifts is Doppler or expansion and ignores the light-matter interactions widely studied by the laser specialists.

2- If new scientific laws appears necessary, a balance of the hypothesis and the results must be done.

Posted - 08 Jan 2006 : 02:48:44

What is the difference between speaking of the BB and speaking of the sex of the angels ?

The BB is founded on the assumption that the redshifts result from a Doppler/expansion effect while the users of laser pulses observe Doppler-like redshifts every day. Do their cells or optical fibres expand ?

Posted - 27 Feb 2006 : 03:56:46

quote:Originally posted by Tommy


A summary of the other direction

Tommy Mandel, Editor

It is very interesting to present the observations which show that the Big Bang theory does not work. But there is a lack of alternative explanations.

May I explain the development of the CREIL theory ?

In 1968, two authors observed frequency shifts of short laser pulses. The shifts are proportional to the path of the light through matter, and the geometry of the beams is not changed, so that, this "coherent" interaction does not blur the images. It does not blue the spectra too, in particular, the initial frequency disappears.

The theory was done, and several authors developped a spectroscopy founded on the use of ultrashort light pulses. To get a strong effect, they use strong pulses, so that the effect becomes nonlinear, but the theory applies at any light level, without threshold (the nonlinear technology is names "Impulsive stimulated Raman scattering" : ISRS (a lot of publications).

Ten years ago, I proposed to apply the effect to astrophysics, and published several papers in reviews of spectroscopy; now, I name it "Coherent Raman effect on incoherent light" (CREIL). The theory shows that, replacing the ultrashort pulses by the pulses which make the usual incoherent light, forbids the effect except in few low pressure gases, therefore weakens it, so that laboratory experiments should be very expansive.

The CREIL effect is not a simple coherent Raman effect, but a SET of related coherent Raman effects (each one producing a frequency shift without any blur of the images and the spectra) such that the efficient gas is not ex- or de-excited, playing the role of a catalyst (this role is common in coherent spectroscopy: happily, in a crystal which doubles the frequency of a laser beam, no heat is produced, which would break the crystal). The transfers of energy which produce the frequency shifts increase the entropy of the set of interacting beams.

It seems that the most common CREIL efficient gas is atomic hydrogen in its 2S or 2P states (named H*). The redshifts appear where there is H* on the path of the light. H* is produced:

1- at very high temperature (100 000 K) and a sufficient pressure (avoiding a full ionization), very close to the kernels of the quasars.

2- around the quasars, where atomic hydrogen (10 000 K-30 000 K) is pumped by Lyman alpha frequencies. This happens around the quasars, and explains that the quasars are much redshifted, and that there are

"very red objects" (VROs) close to them. The quasars are simply "micro-quasars" surrounded by a cloud of hydrogen. (A "micro-quasar" is a type of fast-moving neutron star observed in the galaxies; it seems that it finds more hydrogen leaving the galaxies)

3- the cooling of an hydrogen plasma produces metastable atomic hydrogen in state 2S. This happens by a cooling of the solar wind beyond 5 UA. A transfer of energy from the solar light to the radio frequency explains the anomalous blueshift of the radio signals from the Pioneer 10 and 11 probes, and that the anisotropy of the CMB is bound to the ecliptic.

In the propagation of a far UV continuous spectrum in atomic hydrogen, the Lyman alpha absorption produces H* which shifts shorter frequencies to the Lyman alpha frequency, renewing the energy available at this frequency. It appears a nonlinear absorption/shift effect which produces stronger absorptions with a periodicity multiple of z=0.062.

This theoretical result, deduced from old spectroscopy, is exactly what is observed by Bell and Comeau !

Posted - 01 Mar 2006 : 05:49:27

quote:Originally posted by Tommy

quote:In the propagation of a far UV continuous spectrum in atomic hydrogen, the Lyman alpha absorption produces H* which shifts shorter frequencies to the Lyman alpha frequency, renewing the energy available at this frequency. It appears a nonlinear absorption/shift effect which produces stronger absorptions with a periodicity multiple of z=0.062.

This theoretical result, deduced from old spectroscopy, is exactly what is observed by Bell and Comeau !

Are you saying That Tifft was correct with his recognition of periodicity of the cosmological redshift? What Bell and Comeau observed confirmed Tifft's findings, if I understand him right. Are you saying that the redshift they are observing is due to an interaction with atomic H?


It seems remarkable that a pure spectroscopic study shows the parameter z=0.062. Without any spectroscopic study, you can verify that the redshifts which put the Lyman beta and gamma to the alpha are 3*0.062 and 4*0.062 respectively. The CREIL shows how these shifts and their multiples appear as lines by a simple propagation of far UV light in atomic hydrogen. The discussions about the observations done by Tifft and Bell seem serious to me and the coincidence of the values .062 appear as a proof of the validity both of the observation and of the validity of the use of the CREIL.

If you compare the explanations by the CREIL and by Lehto (used by Tifft), the CREIL explanation requires only standard physics while Lehto's introduces astonishing variations of physical constants. MOre, the Lehto explanation works only for the periodicities, while the CREIL effect explains a lot of observations: the WHOLE spectrum of the quasars, supposing only that they are micro-quasars surrounded by a cloud of hydrogen, the proximity effect, the "anomalous acceleration" of the Pioneer probes, that the anisotropy of the CMB is bound to the ecliptic...


If so, then you are also saying that the assumption that the redshift is a doppler effect is falsified. Would you then say that if redshift is not a measure of velocity, then expansion is not being observed?

At least it is much smaller than supposed by the BB theory.


And then would you go so far as to say that if expansion is not observed, then there is no need for a big bang/inflation? And then, would you say that if there is no need for a big bang, such a theory is not part of "science?" I bet you are wondering what will take it's place, right?

I am not an astrophysicist. All what I say is that there are much simpler explanations of many observations than by the theory of the BB. For a spectroscopist, it is clear that most frequency shifts are due to an interaction between light beams propagating in atomic hydrogen


So it isn't unreasonable to ask that if matter wasn't created in a big bang a long time ago, where did it or does it come from?

HYpothesis non fingo (Newton)


Wasn't it you that said gamma rays can create electrons if they pass near a proton? Or ion?

The creation of electron pairs from gamma rays is well known.

quote: They actually observe that effect in plasma experiments, where "free energy" is produced from what they prefer to call the Aether Energy. Aether Energy exists at the center of galaxies too, right?

I do not understand what you mean.


And a lot pf plasma stuff going on, spirialing and jets and all that, right? So all this extreme energy jets/plumes/clouds/geysers,winds OUTFLOW observed coming out of galaxy is actually just that - matter is created and comes out of the centers of galaxies, right? And that much is happening right now as we speak, wouldn't you say? So now what?

The big outflows from the quasars were deduced from a bad interpretation of redshifts.

Although I am not sure, I think that there is a lot of hydrogen in the intergalactic space, so that the microquasars (a type of neutron stars) which are fast moving objects are surrounded by hydrogen when they leave their galaxies, therefore become true quasars. The isolated quasars are produced by our galaxy, the other by the close galaxy. (Not sure, I do not know enough astrophysics!)


We can forget wondering about plasma, that is a fact of matter well researched. We might learn about that research...What we can wonder about is what is the Aether?

We become able to use the world by science, in particular by mathematical representations. I do not know whether the fields exist physically or only mathematically. I know how to make electronics or electric motors using the fields ...

Posted - 02 Mar 2006 : 03:06:20

quote:Originally posted by Tommy

Does the zero-point energy REALLY exist?

It results from general properties of the waves:

The absorption of a field is the addition of an opposite field. But it is impossible to generate a field opposite to the field generated by a small source using small sources. Therefore, it remains a residual field.

In acoustics, the "active absorption" of a noise is tried with loud speakers. It works, but is far from perfect... Happily, the acoustical waves have an attenuation term; As EM waves do not have such an attenuation term, it remains a stochastic field.

This stochastic field cannot be absorbed: a source of field amplifies or attenuates existing fields; thermodynamics shows that the entropy of the EM waves has its lowest value for the ZPE; thus, a hope to get energy from the ZPE is a hope to destroy the Carnot principle.

Posted - 04 Mar 2006 : 05:52:27

quote:Originally posted by Tommy

So, my question is "what about this?"

Puzzled then sceptic.

Posted - 06 Mar 2006 : 02:58:58

quote:Originally posted by Tommy

quote:Tapping Zero-Point Energy

by Moray B. King

The hypothesis for tapping the zero-point energy (ZPE) arises by combining the theories of the ZPE with the theories of system self-organization. The vacuum polarization of atomic nuclei might allow their synchronous motion to activate a ZPE coherence.

puzzled and then skeptical

Skeptical too. Everybody is tempted to understand more, but often introduce absurd explanations.

There is no problem with the ZPE:

1- In the classical electromagnetism, it is impossible to absorb the fields emitted by small sources using small sources (remember: the absorption of a field is the addition of an opposite field, generating with dipoles the field opposite to the field emitted by a dipole requires an infinity of dipoles). Thus it remains a stochastic field, the ZPF.

2- Nernst computed the ZPE. It may be computed easily from thermodynamics.

3- The ZPF makes a thermodynamical bath. There is no isolated system in electrodynamics

4- Einstein (1917) introduced induced emission, and the laser experiments show that the spontaneous emission is an amplification of the ZPF (ZPF: field corresponding to the ZPE). All exchanges of energy between matter and EM field are amplifications or absorption of the ZPF, absorptions down to the ZPF (which is not well defined, because the value hf/2 (at 0K) of the ZPE in a mode is statistical).

Nothing more to say about the ZPE.

Posted - 07 Mar 2006 : 02:36:28

quote:Originally posted by Tommy

I want to understand for mysekf what is happening, and many times there is someone to help me on my way.

I don't want to argue the ZPE with you, in a sense I sense you are right, but only in the sense that the ZPE is considered a classical field. .... Suddenly there are limits of what can be done and what can't be done.

I almost agree with you. My point on the aether is that we are unable to describe any of its properties, so that I prefer to use Maxwell's equations without any usable hypothesis on a justification of these equations. I do not know whether an electric field IS a physical object or only a mathematical tool, I need only an useful, understandable representation of the nature. it is Newton's "hypothesis non fingo".


I am not talking about the classical ZPE of ZPF that you are describing. I am not even talking about the source of the ZPE, I am talking about something that I can't talk about except in specific terms and when I do that I am not talking about what I was talking about, anymore.

I wrote Puthoff about what you said. Interestingly he didn't come back with pages of formulas, instead he came back with this --

"Reality of the ZPE for potential application is discussed with regard to a program involving collaboration between our Institute, Lockheed Martin, and other universities - - see attached, just presented at the February mtg of STAIF (Space Technology Applications International Forum)."


A lot of people tried to obtain energy without any increase of the entropy of the source of energy. The ZPE obeys thermodynamics, only a Maxwell's daemon can extract a valuable amount of energy from it... But this daemon cannot exist !

Posted - 02 Apr 2006 : 09:09:17

Although I was mainly a theoretician, I am generally very sceptic about new theories ... Thus, the following comments are probably too careful !

quote:Originally posted by Tommy

It has always been assumed, by some, that space was empty. Indeed, if we look closely between our outstretched hands, the space inbetween looks empty. But it can also be assumed, and quite a few do assume, that space is full.

The study of the spectrum of a micro-quasar, taking into account the CREIL effect (which is a direct application of standard coherent light-matter interactions) shows that they become quasars if they are embedded in a cloud of hydrogen. There are two main types of quasars: quasars bound to galaxies and isolated quasars whose repartition is isotropic. It seems that the isolated quasars are bound to our galaxy, so that it seems that the micro-quasars (which are fast moving neutron stars) become quasars when they leave their galaxy. A possible conclusion may be: there is much more diffuse hydrogen out of the galaxies than inside... maybe, the galaxies are not regions where there is a larger mean density of usual matter, but regions where the matter agglomerates.

quote:Have you ever wondered how an atom can move around forever? In 1987, Hal Puthoff wrote the paper showing that the atom get an energy from the ZPE. So space turns out to be an energy.

A lot of absurdities are written about the ZPE. Nernst showed that the energy in an electromagnetic mode has a minimal mean energy, the ZPE. By definition of an optical mode, the EM field in a mode depends on a SINGLE real parameter, the mode-amplitude (or the temperature plus a sign: this allows the eccentrics introduce negative temperatures!). Nernst's result shows that the mode-amplitude has a minimal mean value. The zero point EM field is an ordinary field, corresponding to this minimal value; other values correspond to hotter fields ...

This applies supposing that Maxwell's equations are linear in the vacuum. But they are not at very high energies, because electron pairs may be produced by pure EM fields. It is possible to build (3+0)D solitons (that is particles) of the EM field introducing nonlinear permeabilities and permittivities for the vacuum, from (2+1)D solitons ( in matter, light filaments well known in optics). It is possible to imagine that the neutrinos are such space-limited filaments whose interactions (= transformations of the types of neutrinos which are observed) could finally produce ordinary matter. Be careful !


z The introduction in 1854 by Georg Bernard Riemann the idea of hyperspace,...” In lieu of Newton’s “action-at-a-distance theories, Riemann was proposing that all such apparent forces were the result of objects moving through three dimensions, but distorted by an intruding geometry of 4-space.

We may use different mathematical tools to get the same result. Pay attention: has the world space a physical meaning ?


The use by Maxwell of quaternions ...

An old mathematical tool. Using matrices is generally preferred now.


The exclusion by quantum physicists of Bohm’s hidden variable theory, “which conceivably could have offered the potential of engineering quantum change -- engineering physical reality itself.”

The solitons solve the wave-particle duality problem rigorously. De Broglie's and Bohm's ideas are history.


Quantum Electrodynamics Zero Point Energy of space

The ZPE allowed to set QED identifying the energy in a mode with the energy of an harmonic oscillator.

Else, how could Nernst compute the ZPE more than 10 years before QED ? Learn old physics (modes...)


“Given the prodigious amount of ‘vacuum energy’ calculated by modern physicists ...

Nernst worked on the ZPE in 1916. From thermodynamics and Einstein (1917), the ZPE cannot be used. Maybe interesting at very high frequencies ...

I think that it is necessary to know exactly the meaning of the words and more, of the concepts we use, going at their source. If we are not very careful, we may build a religion such as the BB and the principles of quantum mechanics (listen the anathema uttered by their defenders).

Posted - 03 Apr 2006 : 02:08:13

quote:Originally posted by Tommy

... You talk about a physical field that happens to be around when there is little else. What is the source of this field?

To absorb a field, you must generate an opposite field. It is impossible to generate a field opposite to the field radiated by a dipole using other, far dipoles: therefore, the fields emitted by the atoms cannot be fully absorbed, it remains a stochastic field.

This stochastic field plays the role of a thermal bath; if an atom emits a quantum of energy, the mean level of the field is increased, so that the probability of an absorption of a quantum is increased.


You say that a lot has been said of the ZPE that is absurd. But what about life without the ZPE?

If we consider Bohr's model of H atom, the electron radiates a field. Without ZPE, this radiation corresponds to a loss of energy, the electron falls to the proton; with the ZPE, the radiated field interferes with the ZPE, so that no energy is radiated (more precisely, it is necessary to correct slightly Bohr's atom with Lamb's energy).

quote:Saying that atoms self-exsist forever sounds just as absurd to me. Two absurds cancel, we are still left with the question of what is happening.

It is the problem of the hen and the egg: both atoms and ZPE are necessary for a coherent physical representation.


I would like to point out that the principle of emergence enables a couple physicals to form a relationship with emergent properities which when taken as a whole have new unique properties which cannot be found in the original physical parts. These words were physically created, does that physicality preclude their obviously non-physical meanings?

Using the laws of physics to find something new, there are two possibilities:

i) the "new" is a discovery, the theory works, it is good.

ii) the experiment shows a failure. It is better, allowing to improve the old physical laws. It may be known that these old laws are approximate; In the case of electromagnetism in the vacuum, there is a single known failure: at very high energy with the creation of electron pairs.


So I am very comfortable imagining that there is more than just space and matter. I would have to say that I imagine space and matter working together somehow. And that tells me that space is something else anyhow.

Too philosophical for me. I only use the properties of space and matter...


The big question that everyone was asking when Aether was popular was "Where is it?" That's a fair question, and when I asked it my answer was INSIDE space.

I know Maxwell's equations, their invariances by time-space transformations. I am unable to give a philosophical interpretation of these laws.


That's when Hal Puthoff wrote and told me of his paper showing how the ground state of the hydrogen atom is balanced by a flow of energy from or through the ZPE.

I have just written how the ZPE is necessary for the stability of hydrogen atom.


As we see, citing the ZPE has its problems.

My criticizing of the ZPE may appear ambiguous: for me, the ZPE exists only in a 0 K blackbody; but, at higher temperature, the field is necessarily larger than the ZPE, following Planck's law with the additive constant whose value was computed wrongly by Planck, correctly by Nernst: in a mode, the energy is hf(1/((exp(w/kT)-1)+1/2).


But that is true whatever we choose to call it. And that is precisely why I like to call it simply the INSIDE of space.

It may very well be that the INSIDE is not anything in particular which I admit poses a big problem for the scientist who needs something to test.

If I understand you, I am only interested by the INSIDE.