# Thread: Zero Point Energy (the "vacuum", or ground state) and the constant "c"

1. ## Zero Point Energy (the "vacuum", or ground state) and the constant "c"

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

Vacuum energy (the “zero-point”, or “ground” state)

The Special Relativistic equation relating energy and momentum is:

(It is derived in several pdf's in the relativity section on my website, and in numerous other sources if you don't believe me.)

, where

is the initial state,

is the final state, and

is a “perturbation” as an additional energy contributed by the relativistic momentum ,

, and .

Single Particle (Universe, photon, photo-electron, parking lot, steel plate, etc.)

If there is only one particle (universe, photon, electron) then , , , and therefore

, so

, and .

If , then , which is the “zero point” energy (the “ground state”, or vacuum state. Working physicists often set c = 1 (which can create a lot of confusion unless you're really, really careful in your reading...)

For most purposes it is the electromagnetic state of the parking lot, absent the air molecules..

Two Particles (Universes, photons, photo-electrons, parking lots, steel plates, etc.)
Suppose there are two identical particles, so v = c.

.

Then , and .

If , then , the “vacuum” state for two particles.

For , we have , again which is the vacuum state for 2 particles.

The vacuum state is the fundamental point of reference for all of modern physics; solid state, quantum mechanics (which relates all energy to h), QFT, and in particular, Bose-Einstein statistics. For negative quantities (mass, etc.), fermions and other interactions must also be included, with symmetries providing additional structure models...., and three spatial dimensions for experimental QM/QFT interpretations in terms of "probability" functions (wave equation interpretations, etc.). It does get more complicated....

(note: In STR, by deconstruction v/c in terms of space-time it is easy to see that is a light density in space or time, but not both. STR does not include spin, which was added by Pauli/Dirac later, and is a model for gravity as an additional energy...)

Interpretation: The former interpretation of is as a mass (the “Ow” of Physics). Suppose is an imaginary ruler or radius. Then the particle (universe, parking lot, etc.) has no mass, and only exists in the mind of the observer as a thought process (the “wow” of physics).

Here the observer is at least me, but I'm not so certain of you.... and I'm at the center of the light cone looking either up or down in the time dimension from the instant present, with the "past" at one's back and the "future" in front, or left or right in the space dimension from my observation position of (0,0). Except instead of x = ct, there is this funny squared definition of time and space ...

Of course, some (even on this forum) envision “c” as an invisible constant “substance, ether” that pervades the Universe, a “force” (that may or may not be with you, and may even be a second observer watching you and writing down all your sins). Attempts to verify this have been inconclusive (largely consisting of 60’s experimenters in India bouncing cross-legged on cots with their eyes closed, trying to levitate)....

If c=0, there is nothing there (no matter, never mind...

2. ## Re: Zero Point Energy (the "vacuum", or ground state) and the constant "c"

Originally Posted by BuleriaChk
Of course, some (even on this forum) envision “c” as an invisible constant “substance, ether” that pervades the Universe, a “force” (that may or may not be with you, and may even be a second observer watching you and writing down all your sins). Attempts to verify this have been inconclusive (largely consisting of 60’s experimenters in India bouncing cross-legged on cots with their eyes closed, trying to levitate)....
Whenever you're finished trying to lie your way out of your mistakes, might want to read up on these:
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19730059884
https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0504109
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0508097
https://www.osapublishing.org/josa/a...=josa-62-4-511
Phys. Rev. Lett. 42, 549 (1979) - Improved Laser Test of the Isotropy of Space
Binary Stars as Evidence against Ritz's Relativity
DESY - FLASH - Free-electron laser FLASH
http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/jre...n4p623_A1b.pdf
Phys. Rev. D 44, R2216(R) (1991) - Test of special relativity by a determination of the Lorentz limiting velocity: Does E=\${\mathit{mc}}^{2}\$?
https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9711061.pdf

The list goes on and on... from the early days up to 2005, but then, you are not interested in the actual experimental data, are you?
Because denial of reality is the only way you can maintain your illusions.

3. ## Re: Zero Point Energy (the "vacuum", or ground state) and the constant "c"

I'm not denying reality (or any of these papers, come to think of it, which with the exception of one seem completely irrelevant to anything I've said (certainly in this thread).... Just a bunch of crap of other people's work you throw up against the wall to try to sound like you are technically qualified to discuss anything beyond high school physics...

4. ## Re: Zero Point Energy (the "vacuum", or ground state) and the constant "c"

Originally Posted by BuleriaChk
I'm not denying reality (or any of these papers, come to think of it, which with the exception of one seem completely irrelevant to anything I've said (certainly in this thread).... Just a bunch of crap of other people's work you throw up against the wall to try to sound like you are technically qualified to discuss anything beyond high school physics...
You are in utter denial... You deny that "c" is a constant - a basic of Theory of Relativity and Cosmology. You have stated more times than I can count that you think "c" has a variable value and you've calculated it (all the while ignoring all showings that you were wrong at your result).
One moment, you claim support of the references I post, then you post your claims which contradict them.
These very links I posted refute the claim you made just a post above mine: Your claim that calling "c" a constant is absurd, you repeatedly compare it to religious faith and your claim that it is not experimentally verified, just inconclusive results from the 1960's by indians practicing yoga.
You literally Just Posted that nonsense and then immediately denied it.

It's no wonder you cannot keep anything straight. It's no wonder you later claim that citations, references and the like were never made even though they were; it's no wonder you cannot be taught the actual physics; it's no wonder you continually post in a dream-like state of utter delusion.
You can't even keep it straight across two posts!

And your support for this behavior on your part: Like John Gabriel you always claim anyone that does not agree with your hokey hodgepodge of gibberish is intellectually deficient. You are no different than he is.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•