Mad Teddy's researches
into zero-point energy
Science, scientific method, and ZPE: some thoughts
>>> Nikola Tesla's 153rd birthday <<<
On the evening of Monday, 9th February 2009, there was a magnificent
sunset over Launceston. You know me - I just had to go and grab my old
Mavica camera before it ended (you only have a few minutes!), and take
some shots over to the west, up the hill behind our home. The picture you
see above is the most spectacular one I was able to get.
As always, I was pleased to obtain a good series of weather photographs -
but on this occasion, the usual buzz I get when I manage to pull off
something like this was tinged with more than a little sorrow, because
that was the worst day of the
horrific bushfires
which wrought devastation in the state of Victoria, several hundred
kilometers north of where I live.
Having (hopefully!) thus established my sincerity, I'll proceed:
It was an inferno. In some parts, the fires were driven by northerly winds
blowing at something like 60 kilometres per hour. In certain instances
where cars were burnt out, some metal components actually melted
(click
here
to see an example; also scroll up two pictures to see another).
Just
one more link
to click on (added on 18th Feb. 2011). Note in particular
from the paragraph just below the map of Victoria just how nasty some people are, and
be stunned at how they can treat their fellow human beings with such contempt.
I don't want to say too much more about it here. As I write this (Sunday,
17th May 2009), there is a Royal Commission in progress which will
hopefully address all the issues, with a view to trying to prevent
anything similar happening again. I'll be most interested in its findings,
when it's all over.
However, just over the last few weeks we've seen something very similar
happening in
California
- and summer hasn't even begun there yet!
However, in recent times, we've heard a whole new series of questions
being asked:
Either way, can we really do anything about it? - and if it is
merely a natural occurrence, should we even try?
Hence this website. I'm doing whatever I can, in my own way, to try to
make a difference.
As I've mentioned here and there in other pages within this site, I
believe that any solutions will have to be fundamentally technical in
nature. Of course, I don't belittle the problems we face from the worst
aspects of human nature: greed and arrogance, which (I firmly believe)
have brought our world to its present sorry condition. No amount of
technical know-how can fix what may be described as a "spiritual" problem.
But we have to start somewhere, and simply do whatever we can, because
time is short. If there are any possible (even partial) solutions to the
problems of human nature, we'll just have to hope that they will appear
along the way, as those of us who can address the technical
problems just get on and do so.
To be fair, there are some hopeful signs that we have a chance. Since the
recent elections in Australia and the US, both countries now have leaders
who, in principle at least, are addressing the issue of education in the
scientific arena, in what seems to be a sincere attempt to reverse the
"dumbing down" which has characterized the neo-conservativism of the past
several years.
However, as I've also mentioned here and there in other pages, there is an
inherent problem within the mainstream scientific community itself which
could well hamper our best attempts to come up with the best possible
solutions for our world's current difficulties.
Please - humour me while I take yet another trip down memory lane.
It's all a bit of a blur for a new high-school kid. For example: as far as
chemistry is concerned, one of the first things to be noticed in a science
lab is a large chart on the wall, with the grand title "Periodic Table of
the Elements" (or something very similar). At first, it's a matter of
learning just a few of the more obviously "important" elements - carbon,
hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, sulphur, iron, sodium and chlorine, to name a
few, and some of their better-known compounds.
It was only in later school years, and into Matriculation College, that we
began to learn about the structure inherent in the table, and even to
appreciate some of the history behind it. Its obvious importance with
regard to valencies, chemical formulas and equations became clear. At this
point in their scientific education, students are learning not just
what, but also something about how. (Of course, the
situation is similar in the other sciences, such as physics and biology.)
Along with the facts - including things like physical constants (the speed
of light, Avogadro's number, the universal gravitational constant etc.)
and physical laws (often expressed in equations such as E = mc2 ,
F = Gm1m2/r2 ,
or 2as = v2-u2 )
- there were mentions of something called "scientific method", probably
beginning at Matric. and definitely continuing into university. It was
around that time that alarm bells began to ring in my head.
On the face of it, scientific method is basically about ensuring that
scientific work follows certain agreed procedures in order to allow
scientists to repeat and verify other scientists' work. One of its most
prized attributes is objectivity - the idea that a scientist should
not allow his or her own opinions or values to cloud the research, but
adhere strictly to accurate reporting of factual experimental data.
But is it really that simple? Click
here
to see the Wikipedia article on scientific method, and read through it
carefully (or at least, enough to get the gist of it, as it is quite a
long page.)
As I write this, that article begins with the following stern-sounding
remark:
The "talk page" mentioned above is
here.
Oh, my goodness gracious me! That page is a lot longer than the
actual "scientific method" page itself, and is composed of an animated
discussion involving lots of points which, I venture to suggest, at least
appear to have more to do with semantics than with actual content
or meaning. Plenty of "loaded" phrases there - for example, under the part
of that page headed "Hypothesis testing", the phrase "narrow-minded crank"
makes an appearance. (In all fairness, in context that phrase was probably
well-deserved - it referred to the actions of someone involved in judging
school science fairs who managed to get up the noses of others involved in
the process; click
here
to read the story.)
One of the matters addressed in that "talk page" is the definition of
science itself. This raises the question: Who has the right to
define it?
Should scientists, Wikipedia article authors, zero-point energy
enthusiasts, or any other special interest group be given the sole right
to do so? I think not. The word has been around a lot longer than
arguments about what constitutes "correct" scientific method. As far as
I'm concerned, the Concise Oxford Dictionary (Eighth Edition, 1990) has as
much right as anyone to give a working definition. It's too long to quote
here in its entirety (it goes on from the basic definition to deal with
various particular applications of the word to specialized fields such as
"political science"), but it begins (with that basic definition) and ends
(with an etymology) as follows:
That concept implies certainty. However, "science" (in its modern
form, at least) is about theories which can be falsified, i.e.
shown to be wrong - so that, far from any sense of absolute knowledge of
anything, the whole process is characterized by the idea of doubt!
Please - don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that we can fully know
everything - perhaps anything - about the natural world. So a
worthwhile way to view science is as an attempt to move toward such
an ideal, unattainable though it may be. In that sense, the idea that a
theory can be modified - or even overthrown - by continued investigation
is perfectly legitimate.
The point I'm making here is that we human beings are a contentious breed,
and that if something is not certain, you can guarantee that people
with axes to grind on particular topics are going to attempt to push their
own angles, albeit with every possible appearance of rationality and
inevitability (and, of course, no doubt that same accusation can be
levelled against me and my championing of zero-point energy within this
website).
The way I see it, it's when self-opinionated people start laying down the
law about precisely how scientific research should be carried out
that we have a problem. It's then that the whole process can become very
skewed.
For example, refer again to the "talk page" whose link appears above. Once
we get beyond the introductory note at the top of the page and into the
discussion proper (on the subject of scientific method), the first thing
we find is a heated argument about the use of the definite article - i.e.
the word "the" - in connection with the idea! The contention is that the
term "The scientific method" should be used instead of simply
"scientific method"! Dear oh dear...
I'm relieved to see from the ensuing discussion in that page that there
are plenty of top scientists (Richard P. Feynman among them) who take
issue with the notion that there is just one "correct" way of "doing
science".
http://www.fotuva.org/feynman/what_is_science.html
Dr. Feynman's style of speaking and writing (I have a number of his very
entertaining and informative books) was very simple - even childlike.
However, within that disarming style, and with his cheeky sense of humour,
the content of what he had to say was often very profound. He had a
gift for "putting it across".
A quote from that speech, summarizing his views on what science should be
about:
Another quote from that speech, which I think absolutely drives home the
point I'm trying to make here:
If Dr. Feynman were still alive, I wonder what he'd make of all the huff
and puff about "scientific method" within those Wikipedia pages mentioned
above. Not much, I suspect!
Note also from that Feynman speech that he uses the word "pseudo-science"
to refer not to research into new and controversial areas, but to
"the kind of tyranny we have today in the many institutions that have come
under the influence of pseudoscientific advisers". [Shortly, I'll have
more to say about "pseudoscience" and other pejorative - even insulting -
terms which are frequently bandied about (by people whose motivations are
quite different from Feynman's) to pour scorn on research which doesn't
follow the "rules".]
If you'd like to read more about Richard Feynman, visit
this
Wikipedia page (which I do heartily endorse!). In particular, have
a careful look and think about what he had to say on the subject of string
theory.
For years, I thought (wrongly) that scientific method itself was the
problem. Having had plenty of time to mull over it, I now see that there's
nothing at all wrong with the basic idea that science should be done in a
careful manner so that scientists can check each other's work (and, of
course, there should be absolutely no tolerance of deliberate scientific
fraud). However, it's all the bluster, bombast, petty one-upmanship, and
other unfortunate paraphernalia that can so easily accompany the
legitimate process that are really the problem.
Of course, part of that has to do quite simply with "office politics". In
his memoir "I.Asimov" (Chapter 65, page 197-8), Isaac Asimov told the
story of how, while working as an Associate Professor in an academic
institution, he managed to annoy his superiors - who were putting pressure
on him to do more research - by explaining that on the one hand, he found
research difficult and uncomfortable, whereas on the other, he was
outstanding as a writer - and that therefore he should be allowed to
specialize in academic writing rather than research. In his own words:
OOPS! On the face of it, at least, that appears to be all
about losing one's temper. (As I've mentioned elsewhere in this website, I
personally know something about this - and it's not a good way to
make a point.) However, in Dr. Asimov's case, he knew he could get away
with being - shall we say - direct, because he'd already made a
name for himself as a writer - so he would still be able to earn a living,
come what may (and, of course, that's exactly what he did!).
On the face of it, it's very simple: if untenured academics don't publish
the results of their research, it doesn't reflect very well on their
educational institutions - hence the pressure to do so. But there's more
to it than that.
In the current way of doing things, in order to get research published you
have to go through the process of peer review. In the Wikipedia
"Scientific method" page mentioned earlier, this matter is addressed. (You
can either revisit that page and scroll down to the part headed "Peer
review evaluation", or simply click
here
to go straight to it.)
Ostensibly, the idea is to impose some kind of "quality control" on what
gets published. Academic institutions don't want their credibility to be
tarnished by anything that is not in some way "up to scratch"; and,
equally, journals don't want to publish material which brings them
into disrepute. So both parties have an interest in having submitted
papers checked by other workers in the field, which all seems fair enough
- again, on the face of it.
But is life ever that simple?
Please, also read
this
Wikipedia page which deals specifically with peer review. In particular,
scroll down to the part headed "Criticisms of peer review" (or simply
click
here
to go straight to it). Also, do please read the following section in that
page headed "Allegations of bias and suppression".
UPDATE, Thursday, 17th June 2016
Having just clicked on those Wikipedia links, I find that some changes have occurred (as is
always possible with Wikipedia), so that the "Criticisms..." content seems to have been
edited out at some stage. However, a bit of Googling has turned up this page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review
- which (as far as I can see) contains the original text from the earlier link.
Humour me again while I tell my own story of peer review.
I found the whole thing extremely distasteful, for a number of reasons:
Even allowing for a best-case scenario, where the respondents are totally
"professional" and consciously avoid "back-stabbing", in an academic
situation there is always the possibility of self-interest gaining a
toe-hold.
Suppose a senior academic ("A") has built a career on his/her theory,
which has gained enough respectability over time to have become part of
"accepted wisdom". Then some young upstart ("B") lands a position at the
same institution, proceeds to shoot the old theory full of big, ugly
holes, and wants to get published. What will happen?
In an ideal world, "A" will gracefully admit having been wrong and wish
"B" all the very best in his/her academic career, enthusiastically
recommending publication of the new theory. Right?
But as you and I both know, this is far from an ideal world.
Even if "A" is gracious enough to do this, what about other senior
colleagues - indeed, the very institution itself? There may be at least a
perception that the employing institution might be tainted by
allegations of "bad research" by one of its long-standing employees. There
are others' reputations to consider, after all...!
So, if "B" wants to keep the position, it will almost certainly be in
his/her own interest to avoid "rocking the boat". The result is that a
good, new, exciting theory doesn't get published - and the world is the
poorer for it.
The only employees who can afford to publish truly ground-breaking new
research, especially if it will cause embarrassment to colleagues,
will be those with tenure and long-established reputations as good
researchers. So fresh, young minds don't get a chance to shine, while
comfortable old theories - even wrong theories - remain entrenched.
Furthermore, it's not just a matter of embarrassment. If an
institution gains a reputation for backing theories which cause financial
backers - whether government or private enterprise - to become concerned,
there is a real risk that grants for research will diminish, thus harming
the institution economically. How can an institution allow that to happen?
- And why should the providers become concerned?
In the case of government funding, politicians will shy away from spending
"public money" on anything which may be seen as risky. Worse: if there is
even a perception (however misplaced) that new research in some way poses
a threat to national security - whether economic or military - do we
really believe that governments won't actively try to suppress it -
or, at the very least, regulate it?
As far as a corporate backer is concerned, if an institution is seen to be
involved in reasearch which undermines the backer's "bottom line", the
funding will dry up very smartly. (Are you getting my drift - particularly
with regard to the energy scene?)
Hence the only research that junior scientists in a mainstream academic
institution can realistically expect to get published is that which
basically affirms "accepted wisdom", rather than seriously
challenging it. (Indeed, in the scenarios outlined in the previous
two paragraphs, even senior researchers with ground-breaking ideas may
well be warned to fall into line.) The result is that, rather than being
an exciting, vital process of discovery about the universe, science
takes on the appearance of a body of knowledge - the very outcome
that Richard Feynman decried in his speech mentioned above.
UPDATE, Friday, 6th May 2011
Today, while browsing through my web-page about
quasars
- basically to make sure that the various outside links still work
(they do, fortunately!), I followed one of those links and found
this page
which makes some very similar points to those I've just made. (So
it's nice to know that I'm not alone.
As I've already said on numerous occasions in various pages within this
site, I believe there is. If we are ever going to get zero-point energy
taken seriously as a viable energy-source, thus allowing our battered old
world a real chance to regain its equilibrium, it's going to be up
to the citizens - you and me - to make it happen.
The internet has finally made it possible for ordinary people to get their
work published without having to go through the humiliating ordeal
of peer review. There are plenty of experimenters posting the results of
their own research into ZPE on the web, to the point where there is now a
real community of such original thinkers, bouncing ideas off each other,
pooling their intellectual resources freely, trying to make a difference -
and I'm glad to be a participant. The main thrust of this website is to
try to inspire as many other people as possible to get involved in the
same way - and I'm hoping that you may be one of them.
If enough people succeed in building their own working models illustrating
that this enormous store of non-polluting energy is available and
accessible, and post their results on the web, then - sooner or later
(hopefully sooner) - mainstream science, government, and business
will have to realize that the tide can't be turned back, and will thus
finally get involved - and we may then succeed in fixing our world's
overarching environmental problem before it really is too late.
The book is "The Field" by Lynne McTaggart, published by HarperCollins,
2001 and 2003.
The small print just below the book's title (some of which can be seen in
the picture) is a quote from the late Arthur C. Clarke:
I bought the book from a Sydney bookshop in April 2007, when I was up
there as a member of the studio audience for an episode of the ABC
television series "Difference of Opinion". The episode was entitled "Cool
Heads In A Warm World", and dealt with the burgeoning topic of climate
change. (Visit my
History, terminology and motivation
page and scroll about three-quarters of the way down to read more.)
I'd first heard about this book from a family friend a few months earlier.
(The word "Field" in its title refers to the "zero-point field" - so, as
you can imagine, I was immediately interested to obtain a copy.)
I'll be honest: I didn't find it an easy read. As you may expect, I was
hoping to find references to research about practical energy generation by
harnessing the zero-point field - but, in that regard, I was disappointed.
I suspect that part of the problem is that I'm sufficiently old and crusty
that, if an idea is really revolutionary, even rebellious old Mad
Teddy can struggle with its implications. (After all, when I first was
first getting to grips with the basic concept of zero-point energy about a
decade ago, I wasn't sure if it might not all just be a big leg-pull, at
first.)
You don't have to read very far into the book to realize that a large part
of its subject matter has to do with quantum mechanics. The first mention
of quantum physics occurs on the fourth page of the Prologue: "The Coming
Revolution" even before we get to Chapter 1: "The Resonating Universe".
As a student, I'd always found the concepts of quantum mechanics difficult
to grasp. In fact, I thought that it must all be a colossal mistake. The
very suggestion that "cause and effect" doesn't seem to "work" at the
atomic and molecular level was a real problem. Such things as
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle,
Schrödinger's cat,
and the
EPR paradox
- not to mention the astonishing implications of the
double-slit experiment
- can leave one scratching one's head. (An inability to grasp and deal
with these concepts may well be part of the reason that I struggled as a
physics and chemistry student at university in the 1970's.)
Here's
another one which addresses the matter; and
here's
another. Note the following two comments in the second of these, in the
part which deals with the fact that the effect is exhibited not only by
light (photons), but also by electrons:
“The path of the electron from the electron gun to the screen is not
knowable when we see the interference pattern. As Heisenberg said, "The
path [of the electron] comes into existence only when we observe it."”
Now: to drive the point home and add what must surely be the weirdest
aspect of all, watch
this
YouTube video. Note the final conclusion, which I'll come back to shortly:
“The observer collapsed the wave function simply by observing.”
It's worth mentioning that plenty of other people have battled with the
concepts of quantum mechanics. In his memoir "I.Asimov", the late Isaac
Asimov tells the story (in Chapter 44, page 132-3) of how, when he
returned to chemistry to continue work on his Ph.D. thesis after a stint
in the US army toward the end of World War II, he was taken aback to find
how things had changed:
I had not kept up with that change and was appalled to find that chemistry
had turned into Greek for me. Fortunately, I had taken all my course work
before leaving for Philadelphia and there was no need for me to do
anything but research. This was incredibly fortunate, for there was now
scarcely a course that I could reasonably have needed to take that I would
have had any perceptible chance of passing.
So I'm in good company! If such a luminary as Dr. Asimov struggled with
the weird world of quantum mechanics, there's no shame for me if I do
also.
[It's worth noting that Asimov also mentions in his memoir that, as a
student, he went OK in mathematics until he got to calculus. He could
handle differential calculus all right; but when he came up against
integration, he hit a brick wall (Chapter 30, near the bottom of page 90).
He also mentions (Chapter 41, page 124) that, much to his chagrin,
he was never any good at games - even intellectual games, including card
games like bridge, or (worst of all) chess! (I can understand his
frustration, because I'm not all that good a chess-player myself.) So you
don't have to be a dumbo to have difficulty with complicated ideas
- a fact which I find very reassuring!]
Back to our main theme...
However, Lynne McTaggart's book not only makes that connection, but a
whole lot more besides. We're being asked to seriously consider such
matters as ESP, telepathy, homeopathy, and remote healing - very
"new-age"-ey stuff; and I'm not a "new-age"-ey person! So this time, it
was more like "Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm..."
Have a look at
this
review of the book, and see what you make of it all.
Are you still there? Or have you decided already that it's just
pseudo-scientific (or unscientific), crackpot stuff?
Please - remember that Arthur C. Clarke endorsed the book as well worth
reading, and that his endorsement is right there on the front cover for
all to see. (If you've seen my original
Zero-point energy
page, you'll have noticed several references to Clarke in which I've
mentioned his impeccable scientific credentials, as well as his
endorsement of another unusual book. Also, do please visit my page
about
quasars
in which there are more references to Clarke and his thoughts.)
So - sure, if you like, you can join many other people who simply write
off Lynne McTaggart and her books (she has written others along similar
lines since) as rubbish. (If you do a Google search on "Lynne McTaggart
crackpot", you'll find that there are plenty of people who do just that.)
Or you can remember that Galileo, Olaus Roemer, Michael Faraday, and
plenty of other researchers - including Nikola Tesla, of course! - who
made ground-breaking scientific discoveries were also basically regarded
as "cranks" or "crackpots" in their time (or worse - Galileo was branded
by the Inquisition as "vehemently suspect of heresy", a very
serious legal matter in those times); and then perhaps you can keep an
open mind, at least until you've taken the trouble to actually check these
matters out with a degree of sincerity.
A few weeks ago, when I started researching for this page, at some point I
typed something like "McTaggart 'The Field'" into Google. One of the pages
that turned up - the first one, I think - was a Wikipedia page which
unceremoniously labelled the book as "pseudoscientific". Basically, it was
just a rant. (Okay - I've written some rants in my time; but I always make
an attempt to justify my position. This was different.)
So - just a few days ago, when I started Googling again, I was surprised
(pleasantly, I may say) to find that that page seemed to have disappeared!
Instead, I found
this
Wikipedia page. It's short and to the point; but most importantly, there
is no hint of the gratuitous rudeness of the earlier article. So I live in
hope. Do have a look at it.
Next, have a look at
this
YouTube video which features an interview with Lynne McTaggart.
She mentions "science and spirituality" in a single sentence, just like
that. So how do we take this? Do the two concepts go together? Can they
co-exist - or are they diametrically opposed?
Dr. Hal Puthoff features very large in the book, much of which deals with
the researches of him and his colleagues. (I've made mention of Dr.
Puthoff in my original
Zero-point energy
page.) One particular topic is what Dr. Puthoff would come to call
"remote viewing". (This is first mentioned on page 190 of "The Field", in
Chapter Eight: "The Extended Eye".)
Please visit
this
Wikipedia page about Hal Puthoff; and in particular read the section
headed "Secret government work". [If you like, you can go straight to that
section by clicking
here
to read about "Project SCANATE" (later
"STARGATE",)
which involved remote viewing.]
In her book, Ms. McTaggart goes into considerable depth about this. Remote
viewing is, as you might suspect, the ability to "see" from a distance - a
very considerable distance!
On page 191, we read that shortly after Dr. Puthoff had circulated his
paper on early experiments into the phenomenon, he had a visit from two
"blue-suited"
I remember having seen, heard or read something about this in my younger
days. I always wondered what the big deal was. Were "the Russians" going a
bit barmy, playing around with goofy touchy-feely stuff like ESP? - and if
so, why should anybody else be worried about it? - Or, to put it bluntly:
so what?
"The Field"'s narrative continues:
WELL!!!
No wonder the blue-suited spooks were worried!
Eventually the CIA found what they were looking for in Hal Puthoff, then
at the Stanford Research Institute (SRI). As Lynne McTaggart goes on to
say (on page 192):
* emphasis added
Depending on your particular bias, you may perhaps consider "The Field" to
be "unscientific", "pseudo-scientific", or "crackpot" simply on account of
its subject-matter (which I intend to address in greater detail shortly).
Either way, however, I venture to suggest that - by any realistic
standards - this is, at the very least, a scholarly work.
Importantly (as already mentioned) there are several references in the
book to quantum mechanics - and I feel that it's necessary to discuss this
topic here in order to make my main point. So, fasten your seat belt...
Currently (Tuesday, 2nd June 2009), I have out of the Launceston lending
library a copy of "The Ghost in the Atom", edited by P.C.W. Davies and
J.R.Brown (Cambridge University Press, 1986; this is a 2000 reprint).
It's an attempt to bring to a non-specialist audience an account of
quantum mechanics. On the back cover, a New Scientist reviewer is quoted
as describing it as "one of the clearest short expositions of quantum
theory I have ever read".
There is a Foreword by both editors; then Chapter 1, entitled "The strange
world of the quantum", gives an overview of the subject matter. The
remaining chapters, 2 to 9, are edited interviews by one of the editors
(Paul Davies)
with a number of quantum mechanics researchers: Alain Aspect; John Bell;
John Wheeler; Rudolph Peierls; David Deutsch; John Taylor; David Bohm; and
Basil Hiley. Then there's a Glossary, a bibliography ("Further reading"),
and an Index. All up: about 160 pages. Click
here
to see a Cambridge University Press page introducing the book.
It's very difficult to know where to begin, when deciding what to refer to
in this book. Basically, the best thing I can suggest is that you borrow
or buy a copy yourself, if you can find one, and just read it. But I'll
try to extract a few points from it which might set the scene reasonably
well.
Some quotes from the Foreword:
In the Foreword's penultimate paragraph, the comment is made that
Thus the "wave-particle duality" of quantum mechanics arrived. Until then,
since Thomas Young's original two-slit experiment in 1801 right through to
the development of James Clerk Maxwell's
electromagnetic theory
in the 1860's and 1870's, light had been considered as a waveform to
account for the various observed phenomena. But it didn't stop there;
physicists were concerned that electrons orbiting atomic nucleii - in
curved paths - should, according to Maxwell's theory, radiate energy away
and thus ultimately spiral into the nucleus.
Quantum theory dealt with the fact that this clearly doesn't happen by
considering that electrons are not just particles (the fact that
they can be viewed as particles had been proved by
J.J.Thomson's
cathode-ray tube experiments)
but that they can also be viewed as waves, existing within atoms in
certain discrete standing-wave patterns corresponding to particular energy
levels around the atomic nucleus (see
this page
for a good depiction; scroll about two-thirds of the way down to the
section headed "Wave-particle duality and the Bohr atom"). Then, if an
electron moves between such energy-levels, radiation (in the form of
photons) does indeed occur.
Further research showed that all sub-atomic particles exhibit wave
behaviour. By the mid-1920's,
Werner Heisenberg
and
Erwin Schrödinger
had independently developed quantum mechanics to account for the observed
wave-particle duality.
Chapter 1 goes on to point out that the theory has been extremely
successful, and that no known experiment since has shown it to be false.
But it then goes on to say:
The problem, which was already apparent in the late 1920s and early 1930s,
concerns not the technical aspects of the theory but its interpretation.
- Or, to put it in terms which I used earlier, it's not so much about the
how as the why.
Chapter 1 then goes on - under the heading "Waves or particles?" - to
describe experiments involving the effect on individual photons of
polarizing material (the kind of thing you find in polaroid sunglasses,
for example). From the waveform point of view, if a light wave's
polarization
matches that of the polarizing filter, it will get through with its
intensity undiminished; whereas if they are at 90o to each
other, the light will all be blocked. Between these two extremes, the
intensity is proportional to cos2ø ,
where ø is the angle between the light's polarization and that of the
filter. In particular, if the angle is 45o, then the intensity
is halved, as cos245o =
½ .
The book then proceeds to point out that this kind of uncertainty in the
world of sub-atomic particles is what prompted Heisenberg to come up with
his uncertainty principle in 1927 (at the tender age of 25!). It then goes
on to discuss the afore-mentioned two-slit experiment, in all its
weirdness; a modified version of the two-slit experiment proposed by John
Wheeler (the
delayed-choice experiment);
the EPR experiment (also mentioned earlier); and
Aspect's experiment.
It also addresses the "Schrödinger's cat" issue (also mentioned earlier).
(This is about a cat trapped inside a metal box with a bottle of poison
gas which may get broken depending in some way on whether a particular
atom in a sample of radioactive material decays, and raises the question
of whether it makes any sense to ask whether the cat is alive or dead at a
given time without actually having a look.) The point is made that the
problem becomes even more acute if the cat is replaced by a human being.
The text continues:
The paradox of the cat demolishes any hope we may have had that the
ghostliness of the quantum is somehow confined to the shadowy microworld
of the atom, and that the paradoxical nature of reality in the atomic
realm is irrelevant to daily life and experience.
Perhaps it helps, to put it in more everyday terms (since most of us -
hopefully - don't make a habit of playing fast-and-loose with any of the
nine lives of some unfortunate cat), if we think about how mercury or
sodium street-lights (purplish or orange respectively), with which we are
all familiar, utilise quantum effects (photons emitted by electrons moving
between energy levels within atoms) to brighten our neighbourhoods at
night.
Or, consider the fact that transistors - of which there are millions in
your computer's RAM chips - rely on quantum-mechanical principles for
their operation, and make it possible for you to read this on your monitor
- which, whether an old-fashioned cathode-ray tube or CRT (like mine
As the book then goes on to say:
Among others, Einstein could never accept this logical extreme. Surely, he
once asked, the moon exists whether or not somebody is looking at it? The
idea of making the observer the pivotal element in physical reality seems
contrary to the whole spirit of science as an impersonal, objective
enterprise. Unless there is a concrete world 'out there' for us to
experiment on and conjecture about, does not all science degenerate into a
game of chasing mere images?
Having thus set the stage, the book then asks what the solution is to the
“paradox of measurement”, setting the scene for the interviews between
Dr. Davies and the contributors in subsequent chapters - but first, it
presents some possible positions individual scientists may take:
[The concept of parallel universes has been used many times in science
fiction. Isaac Asimov used it very effectively at least three times: in
"Living Space"
(one of the short stories in the collection
"Earth Is Room Enough");
in the novel
"The Gods Themselves";
and in a time-travel setting in an earlier novel,
"The End of Eternity".
(I realize that it's debatable whether this last of these is really about
parallel universes, because there is a sense in which any
time-travel story is somewhat about parallel universes; but, in
this case, because of the way the main theme of the story is developed, it
really does have the parallel-universes feel about it - at least, to my
way of thinking.) Apparently, some physicists give credence to the idea
that something like this can actually happen!]
Firstly, although there are definite, quite strong disagreements, the
discussion is civilized. Words like "unscientific",
"pseudoscience", and "crackpot" do not feature in the interviews (although
one contributor did use the term "bizarre" in connection with the
many-universes interpretation). Clearly, these are highly intelligent
people trying to make sense of a very difficult and challenging situation,
agreeing to disagree when necessary without resorting to childish
name-calling as they seek to understand how the universe "works".
Secondly, zero-point energy is mentioned twice: in the interview with
Basil Hiley (Chapter 9, the final chapter); and in the Glossary.
The Glossary defintion is as follows:
To me, that sounds somewhat vague - and quite unlike the thoughts on the
matter that I've been finding on the web, and discussing here in my own
site for some time. To put this matter in context, please have a careful
look at the Wikipedia article on the zero-point field, whose link is
here.
In particular, note the following quotes from that page:
Yes. That's hard to push through in detail though, isn't it? For example,
you would expect there to be a difference between neutrons and protons,
and yet their quantum mechanical behaviour is very similar.
But I'm not thinking of this in terms of the electromagnetic background,
because the quantum potential arises from a field that is not like an
electromagnetic field. It seems to be very different; it seems to be much
subtler than that.
So this zero point background that you're talking about is some sort of
background of the quantum potential field rather than the zero point
energy associated with other types of more familiar fields like
electromagnetic fields?
That's right.
...
As I said before - get hold of a copy of the "The Ghost in the Atom", and
read it and try to understand these very difficult concepts - it's
worth the effort!
Please - bear with me while I wax a bit philosophical...
As a young evangelical Christian in the 1970's, I took an interest in the
burgeoning "Creation Science" movement. I'll admit to having been somewhat
bemused by the passions it stirred on both sides: the champions of the
movement on the one hand; and the opponents, from the world of what may be
loosely described as "atheistic science", on the other.
The extreme creationist position was that it was essential
for Christians to hammer home that doctrine, because it was seen as
absolutely fundamental: the claim was that if we couldn't embrace the
biblical account of creation - pretty much verbatim - then our faith had
no foundation and we had no message for a spiritually needy world.
On the other side, the extreme elements of the "atheistic" position
took great delight in pouring huge scorn on the "unscientific nonsense" of
the religious mob. So the battle lines were drawn.
I had what I still firmly believe was the good sense not to get involved
to any great extent. However, I maintained an interest - and, for some
years, I subscribed to a creationist magazine (whose name I won't mention)
and thus kept in touch in a quiet way.
I grew very uneasy when that magazine - and other elements of the
creationist camp - began to respond in kind to the smears and just plain
rudeness of the opposition. Cartoons lampooning the "scientific" side, and
snide little articles doing much the same, began to appear - and quite
soon after that I allowed my subscription to the magazine to lapse.
Worse: it was (I think) in 1982 that I attended a creationist seminar in
Hobart, and was further disillusioned by what I saw and heard there. The
final session I attended, before I quite simply lost interest in the
proceedings, featured a speaker whose subject was what was claimed to be
the exponential decay of the earth's magnetic field, thus (if I remember
rightly) providing evidence for the relatively young age of the planet. I
knew something wasn't right, because I was a keen reader of magazines such
as "Scientific American" and "New Scientist", and what was being said
didn't square at all with what I'd read.
At the end of the talk, questions from the floor were invited. I put my
hand up and referred to what I'd read about the evidence from
seafloor spreading
that the earth's magnetic field has in fact reversed several times
over the ages - so that, far from being an exponential decline, any
lessening in strength of the field may well simply be an example of a
continuing periodic reversal - and asked the speaker to respond.
(Please understand that I wasn't trying to cause trouble. I was
essentially sympathetic to the creationist point of view; but I thought -
and I still think - that Christians can't afford to be ignorant of clear
scientific evidence and thus invite ridicule when they stick their big
feet in their big mouths. So I was actually trying to help.)
The speaker appeared to be completely flummoxed by my question. At that
point, a geologist from the University - who was (if my memory serves me
correctly) of the classic type, with the sports shirt, the shorts, the
beard, the spectacles, and the cocky attitude - stood up at the back of
the hall and proceeded, loudly and arrogantly, to completely demolish the
speaker and his talk, ultimately labelling it (again, if I remember
correctly) as "utter rubbish".
The meeting then broke up in disarray - and I left in dismay. This wasn't
what I'd wanted to happen at all!
(In recent years, I haven't taken any real interest in the "debate",
especially since it has disintegrated even further, now that creationism
has become a major part of the platform of the "religious right" - which I
regard very much as the "religious wrong".)
For all these reasons, it has been with some trepidation that I've taken
on the task of writing this page, knowing that I'm far from expert in the
mysteries of quantum mechanics and that I can't allow myself to refer to
anything "metaphysical" without being extremely careful.
I'm not particularly concerned for myself. Having spent my early years as
an
Aspergian
youngster, I've developed (of necessity) a fairly thick skin; and insults
and put-downs - if they still occur at all - are now really no more than
"water off a duck's back". (As one form of the
old saying
goes: "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt
me".) However, I am concerned that what I say here should at least
do no harm to my main cause of trying to promote ZPE technology to
help mend a damaged world.
So why have I taken the risk of writing the page at all, if there's a
chance it may invite the very response I don't want?
Precisely because I believe that I do have what I consider to be a
valid point of view, and that somebody needs to take the risk of
presenting it, come what may.
It's worth having a look at the Wikipedia article on scientism; click
here.
(I'll admit to having used the word "scientistic" on at least one
other occasion
in this site. The Wikipedia article is correct: it is a pejorative
term, and perhaps I could be criticized for being a little intemperate in
its use. However, on the very sound principle that one is allowed an
occasional stamp of the foot, I'm not going to take it out!
Basically, it's an expression of frustration with the perceived arrogance
of the scientific community when it insists that real knowledge about
anything of any real importance can be acquired only by strict application
of ["the"] scientific method, thus ruling out anything of a remotely
religious or philosophical nature. The implication is that such
considerations are of little or no consequence in the grand scheme of
things.
(Until very recently, economists and right-wing politicians have - in
somewhat similar manner - emphasized the importance of "the economy" over
everything else; hopefully, with the spectacular demise of the unfettered
global economic system, at least that can finally begin to
change...!)
The point I wish to make here is that, quite clearly, even the best
physical scientists are uncertain of what to make of the intricacies of
quantum theory. The fact that books such as "The Ghost in the Atom" exist
(and are even fairly popular, at least in some circles) testifies to the
interest with which such matters are viewed - not to mention the recent
appearance of books such as "The Field", which issue a fairly clear
challenge to scientific "accepted wisdom".
[Then, of course, there is now plenty of material along these lines on the
web. Some of these are previews of other books - for example, may I
encourage you to visit
this
page which contains a preview of "Beyond Einstein: The Cosmic Quest for
the Theory of the Universe" by Michio Kaku and Jennifer Thompson, and take
the trouble to read through it. Even though I personally don't believe
that string theory holds the answers (I have more to say about this
below), this publication has the merit of giving a clear introduction to
the topic - so that the reader may be inspired to read further on these
weighty matters, and thus decide for him/herself whether it all "rings
true" - and I can recommend it for that reason.]
I venture to suggest that there is room for thinking other than the
purely scientific on the questions posed by quantum mechanics. I have my
own thoughts on the matter, which I'd like to present here. I'm not
seeking to dignify them by calling them a theory, or an
hypothesis; instead, I'd rather adopt more of the barrister's
approach - as to a witness in a court case - and offer them as
suggestions.
•
I suggest that Einstein and Bohr each had part of the answer.
Einstein's General Theory of Relativity presents a vision of the universe
as a kind of four-dimensional trampoline (see the preview of Kaku and
Thompson's book, above), on which large objects "sit" and make "dents" of
curved space-time, producing the effect of gravity which thus draws the
objects together. Einstein saw things on the big scale.
In more recent times, there have been attempts to apply quantum mechanics
to the entire universe. This has given rise to what is now known as
"quantum cosmology", which is particularly concerned with such matters as
the origin of the universe. Have a look at some or all of the following
links to get a flavour of the subject:
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/qg_qc.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/quantum.html
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/6929/h_kaku2.html
http://www.lcc.gatech.edu/~xinwei/papers/texts/linde/linde_brief.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_quantum_cosmology
•
I suggest that Einstein may well have been right about the universe being
four-dimensional, but with the fourth dimension representing not "time"
but "energy" - specifically, zero-point energy. {Given mass and distance
as fundamental quantities, we can have either time as
another fundamental quantity - so that energy then becomes a "defined"
quantity with dimensions of mass times distance-squared over time-squared
[J = kg.m2/s2];
or (as one possible alternative) we can have energy as a
fundamental quantity - with time then "defined" as distance times the
square root of mass-over-energy
[s = m.(kg/J)½]. I find the latter
very appealing.}
In Chapter 3 of Stan Deyo's "The Cosmic Conspiracy", entitled
"Constructs of Reality",
the author says:
I'm prepared to consider the possibility that the universe is
eight-dimensional rather than four-dimensional, preferring an
octonion algebraic structure - with well-defined, non-ambiguous division -
to a biquaternion structure, where such division fails. (Presumably, in
such a scenario, the other four "imaginary" dimensions would then account
for certain subtle aspects of the behaviour of the universe which would
only become evident under careful scientific scrutiny, while remaining
undetected by most of us in the realm of everyday experience.) I've dealt
briefly with the octonions and biquaternions toward the end of my
third page about quaternions.
[I can't see any justification at all for "string" or "superstring"
theory, with its ugly choice of 10, 11, or 26 dimensions; to my mind it
violates the principle of
Occam's razor
- and, of course, there is still not a shred of physical evidence
for string theory. Click
here
and/or
here
to read the comments of some eminent scientists - including Richard
Feynman - on this matter.
UPDATE, Thursday, 26th September 2013
Earlier today, someone close to me sent me an email drawing my attention to a
very clever YouTube video entitled "A Capella Science - Bohemian Gravity!".
It's a "send-up" of Queen's 1976 mega-hit "Bohemian Rhapsody", which was
probably the main initiating factor in that rock band's enormous popularity
over many years. It's put together by a physics graduate student who has a sense
of humour (and who looks - to my mind, at least - somewhat like
Dave Grohl
of Nirvana/Foo Fighters fame!
Note that this provides a possible explanation for the apparent randomness
which appears to be inherent in quantum mechanics. With many minds
(including yours and mine) active in the universe - each affecting, and
being affected by, the trampoline-like zero-point field as it (i.e. each
mind) plays a small but very real part in "vibrating" that "trampoline" -
perhaps it's possible to replace Einstein's "God playing dice" with a
multi-partite contribution to a very deterministic universe, thus giving
the appearance of randomness.
Note also that, in a very real and practical sense, this makes all of us
responsible for the welfare of each other and our environment ("...love
thy neighbour..."). Perhaps each of us has a far greater capacity for good
and evil than we realize!
I am astonished - and delighted! - that, finally, some in the mainstream
science community seem to be seriously considering the idea of a
long-range Casimir effect to account for gravity - for example, have a
look at
this
page, and also
this
related page, which contains the following very compelling statement:
(If I'm reading that right, it seems to be possibly issuing a challenge to
the "Big Bang" theory, about which I'll have more to say shortly.)
Stan Deyo, in "The Cosmic Conspiracy", developed much the same idea in
Chapter 3 (see the link above) but used the concept of the old-fashioned
ether, rather than the zero-point field. He had more to say about it in
Appendix 5,
"Einstein's Relativity Error".
In that article, he really stirred the pot (or perhaps the
tea-cup
is a better metaphor here!
Also, in Appendix 6:
"Electro-Dynamic Propulsion"
(which is fascinating and great fun to read), Deyo quotes Leonardo
da Vinci who, on page 624 of Volume 1 of his Notebooks, said (but not in
English, of course!):
I used to believe in the "Big Bang" theory, partly because it at least
appears to provide a mechanism for a divine creation of the
universe as a particular, specific event. However, about three years ago,
I came across some information which caused me to change my mind; see my
page about
quasars
to read more.
Although I no longer take an active interest in the
creation-versus-evolution debate, I nevertheless do consider the question
of the origin of the universe to be well worth pursuing. Having decided
against the "Big Bang", and seeing no particular merit in the
Steady State
theory originally proposed by
Fred Hoyle
and others in 1948, I find it worthwhile to look in the biblical Genesis
account to see if there are any clues there that may be of value in trying
to arrive at a "scientific" explanation of how it all started.
My point is that I seriously question whether "science" - by its own
lights - is really capable of coming up with a fully coherent account of
the universe's existence.
Consider: science needs to be about falsifiability. A scientific
theory is not a "flight of fancy", or mere speculation. To be worthy of
the tag, it has to be subject to testing by other scientists, employing
[the
This in turn means that experiments used to justify a theory have to
repeatable by other scientists, in order to assess its validity. If
experimental results consistently fail to be the same as - or very similar
to - those claimed, the theory is at least seriously questioned. So
everything remains objective.
The problem with cosmology - whose main focus of interest is the origin of
the universe - is: how do we repeat the experiment?
On the other hand, if there is no supreme being, and either the
universe has always existed (as per the "steady state" theory, for
example) or it came into existence as the result of a spontaneous event
such as the "Big Bang" - again, how do we repeat the experiment? (Indeed:
in the first of these two cases, there is - by definition - no experiment
to repeat; and in the second - well, science isn't about spontaneity, is
it?!)
So, as I see it, the problem is quite simply too big for science, in the
strictest sense, to tackle on its own. If we are going to consider the
matter at all, at some point we have to allow for some speculation
to enter the picture - albeit with as much scientific reasoning as
possible involved along the way, to ensure that our thinking is at least
self-consistent.
What kind of speculation? It's probably a matter of personal choice; in my
own case, coming as I do from a basically Christian background, I think
it's reasonable for me to consider the biblical account of creation. Click
here
to read Genesis Chapter 1, verses 1 to 5. (Alternatively, you may like to
click
here
to view a well-produced YouTube video which begins with those same
words.)
The pivotal part of the story seems to be the creation of light, which
appears to have made everything else fall into place. At that level, I can
catch a vision of what might have happened.
Since the work of Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell and others (in the
mid-to-late 1800's), we have a fairly clear picture of what light is: a
form of electromagnetic radiation. In fact, even parts of the EM spectrum
we humans can't see directly are often referred to as "light" - for
example, infra-red and ultra-violet (parts of which some animals
can
see directly; also click
here.)
Even X-rays,
with higher frequencies and shorter wavelengths than ultra-violet (UV),
can be viewed as a form of light which could pass through some materials
(such as human soft tissue) which are opaque to light at other
frequencies.
Then again,
radar
- which operates on microwaves or radio waves, with lower frequencies and
longer wavelengths than infra-red (IR) - can perhaps be viewed as a way of
"seeing" by machine; and of course technology is now available which makes
it possible for humans to see in the dark by electronically detecting
infra-red radiation and thus rendering heat-sources visible. Also,
magnetic resonance imaging (MRI),
a very powerful medical tool, utilizes various aspects of electromagnetism
to "see" details which can't be seen adequately by other means.
Thus, following the lead of
James Clerk Maxwell,
we can reasonably extrapolate the idea of "light" to refer to
electromagnetic radiation at any frequency. To put it in a
nutshell, light is energy. So when the Bible, and other ancient
writings, refer to "light" as being an important part of creation - why
should we not understand it to refer to the creation of energy?
I'm not alone - click
here
and
here
to see examples of how others are pursuing similar ideas!
(For some very interesting thoughts on the relationship between ZPE on the
one hand, and gravitation and inertia on the other - with a possible
application to space travel - see
this
page.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just how serious is the situation?
Have a careful look at
this
web-page, which features some corresponce between Tom Bearden and an
Australian businessman interested in alternative energy technology. It's
very worrying.
It does take a certain amount of courage to get involved with this - but,
as I've mentioned elsewhere, we each only get one life on this planet, and
if we miss our chance to do something worthwhile, it won't come again. So
by producing this website, I'm "going for broke".
This doesn't make me, or anyone else involved in the matter, anything
special. I'm just concerned that for as long as the earth can continue to
support human civilization - and especially so, now that I have my first
grandchild - we need to do whatever we can to keep it liveable for as long
as possible. As Tina Turner
sang
in "Mad Max - Beyond Thunderdome":
For more on this theme, please visit
this
web-page which features an article by one of the leading researchers into
ZPE, Dr. Peter Lindemann, who examines why we don't all have access to
this technology, even though the knowledge has been available for
decades. He cautions strongly against anyone who finds out something
about it becoming self-important and thinking that they might come to be
viewed as some kind of "saviour" - thus becoming part of the
problem, rather than the solution.
(For still further thoughts on the matter, as well as some fascinating
insight about how - as Werner Heisenberg suggested - we could utilise
permanent magnets as an energy source, may I recommend
this
most interesting web-page. Also, while you're there, have a look at the
two quotes at the bottom of the page - especially the one about
being a crackpot!
Apart from any other consideration, it bears remembering that no less a
visionary than
Isaac Newton,
co-discoverer of calculus and early researcher into "opticks" - among many
other things (including the much-celebrated incident with the apple, of
course!) - famously
remarked
that in order to make his own contribution, he had to stand "on ye
shoulders of giants". Much more so, those of us who are involved in these
late times in the field of ZPE research owe a similar debt to many who
have paved the way, among the greatest of whom are Tesla, Maxwell,
Faraday, and Newton himself.
Dr. Lindemann suggests - and I agree - that the only way we're going to
beat what I've previously referred to as the "three P's" - pride,
politics, and power - and get the knowledge to a needy world is by simply
sharing what we know, by whatever means we find available (my means is via
this website) without any attempt to take individual advantage of the
situation. Making one's own working models, sharing one's experiences
freely with others, learning more and more along the way, and refusing to
give up: these are what, if anything, will eventually turn the tide.
We may succeed, or we may fail. The worst we can do is not to try. It
isn't easy; but then, very few worthwhile things ever are.
What say you? Will you get involved?
If you have a "technical bent", may I encourage you to attempt to make
your own working models, and find some way to "go public" (as I have done
via this website). If not, you could still help by writing letters to
newspapers and/or politicians, using other media, or simply telling people
you know about it - anything, to get the message out and promote
public awareness of the matter.
In my own country, what I'd like to see is the Australian government take
the matter seriously and ask the nation's foremost scientific research
organization, the
CSIRO,
to swallow its pride and commence real research into ZPE technology. (In
Australia, it seems that the global recession is hitting us less hard than
in other parts of the world; thus we may be ideally placed to play a
leading rôle.)
If - instead of putting vast amounts of public money into misbegotten
ideas like "geosequestration" (an ugly term for a process also known as
"carbon capture and storage", or even "clean coal technology"
To my way of thinking, it is indeed a symptom of a world that seems to be
spinning out of control that people have been caught unprepared in so many
ways. Dreadful as these bushfires were, they're only one of many instances
of natural disasters occurring around the world on what really does seem
to be an increasing scale. These days, people who continue to deny that
climate change is real and very dangerous are no longer taken seriously by
most of the population.
So the matter is urgent, far more so than has hitherto been recognized -
and the time for real, serious action to fix it is now. Although
this website's preparation started out some four and a half years ago as a
"hobby interest" - starting from such things as mathematics, physical
science, poetry and music, and including political and economic comment -
its main thrust has become climate change and sustainable energy, the best
possible version of which I am firmly convinced is the most basic source
of energy in the universe: that which is known as "radiant energy",
"energy from the vacuum", or "zero-point energy". My hope is that, by
becoming involved in this, I can help to draw attention to ZPE research
and thus help focus public attention on what needs to be done, right now,
while there is still time.
I took it shortly after sunset, this time looking over toward the east,
where the nearly-full rising moon could be seen somewhat hazily through
the clouds. (I'm sure Einstein would have been delighted to know that it
really was still there, whether anyone was looking at it or not!
I'll admit freely that, when I began this page, I had almost no real
understanding of what quantum mechanics was about - only the vaguest
notions, gleaned with difficulty as a university science student over a
third of a century ago. But while researching the subject over the last
few weeks, I think that I've begun to see its significance. I certainly
don't claim to really understand how it all fits together; but I
think I can perhaps begin to glimpse something of the why.
I now see it in the terms I've used in the preceding paragraphs: the whole
universe connected by a vast field of energy, which impacts upon - and is
in turn impacted upon by - every living creature. Not the vague
mumbo-jumbo of astrology, but the strong, vibrant concept of life's common
heritage throughout creation (and yes, I use that term deliberately and
carefully) - the vision that we are all active participants in that
"light" which has characterized the universe since its beginning.
UPDATE, Friday 9-9-2011:
Just under three weeks ago (20-8-2011), I posted my
Sixes and sevens
page, in which I included a number of quotes from Albert Einstein.
The one I'd like to mention again here is this one:
“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong.
Today, while Googling on the sentence "There is no matter", I found
this page,
which is about the "no-show" of the so-called
Higgs boson
(or "God particle"), and which contains the following very telling
1944 quote from Max Planck, one of the other early researchers into quantum theory:
“As a man who has devoted his whole life to the
Visit
this
web-page to read more quotes from Max Planck - and be prepared for quite a surprise.
Am I "stirring the pot"? You bet I am - and I make no apology for doing so!
In April last year (2008) I bought a copy of
Mike Oldfield's
"Music of the Spheres", an essentially "classical" piece which draws its
inspiration from the cosmic dance of such objects as the sun, the earth,
the moon - indeed, every celestial body in the universe. Click
here
to read Mr. Oldfield's own thoughts on the work, and
here
to read a review.
"Music of the Spheres" contains a short but beautiful song entitled "On My
Heart", sung by soprano
Hayley Westenra.
The lyrics are as follows:
If you'd like to hear this song, click
here.
It all sounds very idyllic, doesn't it? - like something we may once have
had long ago, but we've somehow since lost.
I don't claim that directly harnessing that universal energy source to
power our world will bring us any kind of "paradise" or "heaven on earth".
But I do believe it will at least give us a chance to stabilize what we
do still have; and the experience of so doing may perhaps help us
to value each other and our small home planet just a little more.
In one sense, with the posting of this page, my website is now complete.
That doesn't mean I shan't be posting more pages - for example, I still
don't yet have pages on Tesla coils or Wimshurst machines! - and I'm also
sincerely hoping to construct my own truly over-unity ZPE devices at some
stage quite soon. If and when these materialize, they will all be posted
here, along with any other odd poems or musical pieces that come to mind,
more mathematical inspirations, or whatever. I still have lots of
ideas running around in the back of my mind; so do keep coming back to
check.
What I mean is that the site is now essentially structurally
complete, in that I've made the main points I wanted to make when I
started the project in early 2005. All the links, with lots of
cross-references, are now in place.
But there's one more thing I need to add.
Since this website's inception, there has been a page about one particular
huge injustice which I want to see put to rights - and I can't let this
page end without drawing attention to the issue once more. Since 2005, a
young Australian woman has been held in a foreign prison for a crime for
which there is no evidence - because such evidence as initially existed
was
destroyed by the authorities
before it could be used to prove her innocence. Please, visit my
The quality of mercy
page, if you haven't already - and do whatever you can to help. (As I've
said in other pages on other matters, truth must always emerge
eventually - but, in this case, let's do whatever we can to make it emerge
sooner rather than later.)
- And now, late at night on Wednesday, 17th June 2009, I can
finally draw this very complex page to a close.
My home page
Preliminaries (Copyright, Safety)
From my point of view, the most important thing to note from this is the
fact that the very word "science" originates with the Latin word
scire, meaning "to know". (I once read somewhere - and I can't
remember where, sorry - that it actually means to know in the fullest
sense. The word "understand" carries something of the meaning.)
)
Please, do visit that page and seriously consider its author's
arguments.
This is a frame from an mpeg movie showing my
first monopole motor
operating. I used a book to push the electromagnet/LED assembly on the
sloping pillar over to the right and hold it there, while it drew
sufficient power from the rotating wheel's magnets to light the LED.
wheel. At the end I switch the motor off. (The clicking sound audible
after it stops is the wall clock ticking.)
members of the CIA, "waving the
report in hand". It seems that the CIA was becoming concerned about the
fact that "the Russians" 
were conducting
experiments - funded by the Soviet security forces - into parapsychology.
(This was back in the early 1970's, long before the collapse of the former
Soviet Union.)
), or a more modern liquid-crystal or
plasma-screen type, itself also relies on quantum mechanics!
)
Too much butter, and a big dob of VegemiteTM
- then ready to take on the day
I think I'll be.”
(With apologies to
George Gershwin;
this bit of nonsense added Friday, 28th May 2010.)
>>>
Back to business:
<<<
)
), and pokes a bit of
good-natured fun at some of these cosmological concepts such as 10-dimensional
string theory, gravitons, M-Theory etc..
Here's
the link. Go on - have a chuckle, and admire the guy's extreme creative talent
and incredible attention to detail! (I think
Freddie Mercury
would have been highly amused...)]
). Note that here,
he's again referring to a fluid ether, as he did in Chapter 3. Either way
- with an actual ether or a zero-point field - I'll admit that I'm well
out of my depth in this case, and thus I'm neither affirming nor denying
what he has to say in Appendix 5!
] scientific method. In that sense, a
scientific theory is a model of observed reality; if the model can
be shown to have serious inconsistencies, the theory fails.
On one hand, if there is a supreme being who in some
way created the universe, the only way to fully test the
matter is to do it again! Are there any contenders for the
job? Any would-be "supreme
beings" out there?
103
102
101
100
10-1
10-2
10-3
10-4
10-5
10-6
10-7
10-8
10-9
10-10
10-11
10-12
Radio waves
Microwaves
IR
UV
X-rays
Gamma rays
VISIBLE
106
107
108
109
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
Frequency (Hz)
) in the form of electromagnetic radiation with
which we are all familiar.
If an older (pre-1990's) television is tuned to an unused channel, you see
"snow". A small fraction of this is caused by cosmic microwave background
(CMB) radiation, which - according to orthodox theory - is the gradually
cooling radiation left over throughout space from the Big Bang. (Click
here
to read more.)
)
- click
here
to see an article which addresses the safety issues surrounding this), or
playing around with economic so-called "fixes" like "carbon taxes",
"carbon credits" and/or "carbon emissions trading schemes" - governments
cease their oh-so-trendy vilification of
carbon
(the element) as some sort of bad guy, put aside their small ideas, and
promote real sustainable energy (especially ZPE technology)
- then we could begin to repair our world quite soon. That's
what we must encourage them - nay, require them - to do. So - will
you help make it all happen?
)
What we have called matter is energy,
whose vibration has been so lowered as to be
perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.”
most clear headed science, to the study of matter,
I can tell you as a result of my research about
atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All
matter originates and exists only by virtue of a
force which brings the particle of an atom to
vibration and holds this most minute solar system
of the atom together. We must assume behind this
force the existence of a conscious and intelligent
mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.”
Above, the stars are spiralling -
And Heaven, Earth are roaming in a spin.
Memories of light and laughter,
Hope and peace from far here after -
Oh in heaven, wings of angels from a dream...
Virtual ripple tank: double-slit experiment
Copyright © 2009 by Mad Teddy
(Click it to see a 639×480 version)
Return to my ZPE researches menu page