Do PM ou devices evaporate Dirac's sea?
Terry
Like it ! ... except for the choice of the word "evaporate" as it can
imply that the epo somehow disappears.
Another slightly misleading connotation comes from the use of "negative
energy" because the "negative" part most likely refers to a spatial
constraint (reciprocal space) rather than a "real" energy deficit (i.e.
being in another dimension, or at least on the interface and therefor
virtual as opposed to real). Positive energy in reciprocal-space looks
to us like it could be negative energy.
But in both cases, there probably are few better short descriptors to
use, so why quibble. If my slant on this is correct, "evaporate" could
be changed to "renormalize". Which has its own problems, and that only
means any short verbalization is going to be misleading in some way.
Let me add a couple of other thoughts to this putative situation - i.e
the possibility of achieving OU by cohering positive energy in real
space from the "wave action" of the epo field, which is ebbing and
flooding on the interface of our 3-space and Dirac's "reciprocal space"
(which can be a 4th spatial dimension, or else just a mathematical
abstraction).
How does one raise-a-sail in your reciprocal space, PAM? Is the answer
blowing in the wind? Here are some winch-handles for leverage:
1) The laws of thermodynamics in our 3-space will likely hold, so there
should be a cooling of the OU device which is commensurate with
electrical power or torque which is extracted from "free" rotation or
motion - and that cooling may be a limiting factor in how much energy
can be extracted. This may be the best way of detecting that some
progress is being made in experiments, however.
2) The so-called "neutrino" (at least one of the varieties) may be
involved in this process. IOW there is a neutrino variety (I hesitate
to broaden this hypothesis too much, so as to avoid encompassing the
electron-antineutrino which could be a different beast) ... and which
variety can be best described as NOT a particle at all but a "disrupted
travelling wave" in the epo field.
3) The neutrino started out as a kludge and total "fiction" - an
invented particle which was used to balance the books of nuclear energy
events, where lesser energy was seen in our 3-space than should have
been there. It has proved to be a pretty accurate fiction in many
respects, and the idea stuck, and has been expanded in many ways.
Here is a decent web site dedicated to the discovery of neutrin and its
(occasionally seen) MASS and and its (occasionally seen) OSCILLATION:
http://www.phys.hawaii.edu/~jgl/nuosc_story.html
...they seem to change identities from massless, perhaps due to the
"negative energy" to massive. This can be possilby due to stimulation,
or this can happen slowly over time, as neutrinos travel away from the
nuclear event which created them). IOW a solar-neutrino can seem to
become 'massive' and interact with matter when the epo wave (which is
what they really are) is disrupted into 3-space, following which: real
matter is affected)
IMHO, and this is more of a semantics issue, there is/was NEVER any
'real' mass to the neutrino - no matter how it oscillates since it is
all-wave and zero particle in our 3-space, but unlike the photon, which
has mass-energy in our 3-space no matter what it does, the mass-energy
of the neutrino must be "force" by a field effect or passage of time
(i.e. "time" is a field).
4) A magnetic field may disprupt the normally hidden wave pattern in the
solar neutrino flux (which is propagating as traveling-waves in the epo
field and normally does not interact with matter, without that "sail"
which is the temporary disruption)
OK - why attempt to be verbally precise with something which is
unproven, and perhaps even a mathematical abstraction, and at the
expense of confusing a complicated situation... anyway?
hmmm .... nomen est numen ? If math can be precise, then why can't just
words can get us part of the way there ?
Jones
