«PACS-classification: 84.60.-h, 89.30.-g, 98.62.En, 12.20.-m, 12.20.Ds, 12.20.Fv Summary of a Scientfic Work by Claus Wilhelm Turtur Germany, ...»
Conversion of the Vacuum-energy
of Electromagnetic Zero-point Oscillations
into Classical Mechanical Energy
84.60.-h, 89.30.-g, 98.62.En, 12.20.-m, 12.20.Ds, 12.20.Fv
Summary of a Scientfic Work
by Claus Wilhelm Turtur
Germany, Wolfenbüttel, August – 23 – 2010
(living review, last version)
Adress of the Author:
Prof. Dr. Claus W. Turtur
University of Applied Sciences Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel Salzdahlumer Straße 46/48 Germany - 38302 Wolfenbüttel Tel.: (++49) 5331 / 939 - 42220 Email.: firstname.lastname@example.org Internet-page: http://www.ostfalia.de/cms/de/pws/turtur/FundE/index.html Table of Contents
2. Philosophical background
2.1. Static fields versus Theory of Relativity
2.2. A circulation of energy of the electrostatic field
2.3. A circulation of energy of the magnetostatic field
3. Theoretical fundament of the energy-flux
3.1. Vacuum-energy in Quantum mechanics
3.2. Connection with the classical model of vacuum-energy
3.3. New microscopic model for the electromagnetic part of the vacuum-energy.............. 23
3.4. The energy-flux of electric and magnetic fields in the vacuum, regarded from the view of QED’s zero point oscillations
3.5. Comparision of the QED-model with other models
4. Experiments to convert vacuum-energy into classical mechanical energy
4.1. Concept of an electrostatic rotor
4.2. First experiments for the conversion of vacuum-energy
4.3. Experimental verification under the absence of gas-molecules
4.4 “Over-unity“ criterion for the exclusion of artefacts
5. Ongoing remarks and outlook to the future
5.1. Magnetic analogue with the electrostatic rotor
5.2. Rotor with rigidely fixed axis of rotation
5.3. Investigations by others
5.4. Discussion and Frequently Asked Questions
5.5. Outlook to imaginable applications
7.1. External Literature
7.2. Own publications in connection with the present work
7.3. Cooperations and private communication
2 1. Introduction
The name “vacuum“ is usually given to the space, out of which nothing can be taken with known methods. But it is well-known, that this vacuum is not empty, but it contains physical objects [Man 93], [Köp 97], [Lin 97], [Kuh 95]. This is also reflected within the Theory of General Relativity, namely by the cosmological constant , which finally goes back to the gravitative action of the “mere space” [Goe 96], [Pau 00], [Sch 02]. Its name “cosmological constant” indicates, that the universe contains huge amounts of space, which lead to measureable effects, namely it influences the universe's rate of expansion [Giu 00], [Rie 98], [Teg 02], [Ton 03], [e1]. The crucial question of course is, whether it is possible to develop new methods, which allow to extract something from the vacuum, which could not be extracted up to now – some of those objects not visible directly up to now.
Already from the mass-energy-equivalence it is known, that the physical objects within the vacuum correspond with a certain amount of energy. This leads to the question, whether the “vacuum-energy” (i.e. the “energy of the empty space”) can be made manifest in the laboratory. This question was answered positively in the work presented here. The description of the work begins with an explanation of the theoretical concepts in the sections 2 and 3, followed by an experimental verification in section 4, which describes the successful conversion of vacuum-energy into classical mechanical energy. Thus, the presented work introduces a new method to extract energy from the vacuum.
The described energy conversion raises the hope, that vacuum-energy can be used to supply mankind with energy, because it provides possibility to get energy from the immense amount of space which forms the universe, and which is large enough, that mankind will not be able to exhaust it. First of all, this source of energy is free from any pollution of the environment or from causing any damage to our habitat, the earth. Thus, in section 5 there are following some thoughts, regarding the future development of the energy-conversion method up to technical maturity.
2.1. Static fields versus Theory of Relativity 3
2. Philosophical background
The crucial question to authenticate vacuum-energy was: “By which means is it possible to convert vacuum-energy into a classical form of energy (in order to make it visible) ?“
The way to the solution of this question is the following:
If vacuum-energy shall be converted into mechanical energy, there must be some mechanical forces. Responsible for the creation of such forces has to be one of the fundamental interactions of nature, as there are
- Electromagnetic interaction,
- Strong interaction,
- Weak interaction.
For Gravitation is not very strong on the one hand, and Strong and Weak interaction are rather difficult to operate, it was clear from the very beginning, that the most hopeful way for the conversion of vacuum-energy is via Electromagnetic interaction. This way was favoured especially after seeing the considerations published in [e1, e2, e3]. On this basis, the considerations following in section 2 have been developed.
2.1. Static fields versus Theory of Relativity Within Classical Electrodynamics, there is no speed of propagation being attributed to electrostatic fields same as to magnetostatic fields (as far as DC-fields are under consideration, not AC-fields or waves) [Jac 81], [Gre 08]. But rather such fields are regarded as existing everywhere in the space at the same time, at each position with its appropriate field strength, which is calculated for electric fields by the means of Coulomb’s law and for magnetic fields by the means of Biot-Savart’s law – but without taking the speed of propagation into consideration as long as we follow conventional classical point of view.
This conventional point of view is in sharp contradiction with the Theory of Relativity, according to which the speed of light is a principal upper limit for all types of speed at all. If we accept the Theory of Relativity, we have to accept finite speed of propagation of electric and magnetic fields (also for DC-fields).
The contradiction between Classical Electrodynamics and the Theory of Relativity can be
illustrated with the following example:
Please imagine the process of electron-positron pair-production, at which a photon decays into an electron and a positron. This process acts in separating electrical charges, which now (after they are created) produce electric fields because of their existence and magnetic fields because of their movements. Following the conception of Classical Electrodynamics, these fields should be observable everywhere in the space immediately after the moment at which the pair-production had happened, because the finite speed of light should only be applied to the propagation of electromagnetic waves but not to the propagation of DC-fields. If this approach would be appropriate, it would be possible to transport information with infinite 4 2. Philosophical background speed (which is much faster than the speed of light), just by moving electrical charges and measuring the produced electrostatic field strength somewhere in the space [Chu 99], [Eng 05]. It is obvious, that this is in clear contradiction with the Theory of Relativity.
However there is a conception with Electromagnetic Field Theory, exceeding this simple view of Classical Electrodynamics, namely the retarded potentials of Liénard and Wiechert, which finally go back to the fundamental explanation, that the four-dimensional potentials of moving charge configurations follow a finite speed of propagation with their fields and field strengths. Each four-dimensional Liénard-Wiechert-potential can be subdivided into a threedimensional vector potential plus a one-dimensional scalar potential [Kli 03], [Lan 97]. Based on this conception, the electric field strength corresponding with the one-dimensional scalar potential was calculated in the present work, for the example of a configuration of several moving point charges, and the result was plotted as a function of ongoing time at a given position. The purpose of this calculation is to demonstrate, that the time dependent field strength at a given position is indeed dependant on the questions, whether the finite speed of
propagation of the (DC-) field is taken into account or not [e4]. We want to do this now:
Fact is: The conception of (a.) is only an approximation (for small delay time t ) and the conception of (b.) is not really unusual. This can be seen from the fact, that for instance the mechanism of the Hertz’ian dipole emitter is often explained on the basis of the conception (b.), taking into account the electrostatic field as well as the magnetic field [Ber 71].
Another argument to accept this restriction of the propagation of the fields to the speed of light for all fields of fundamental interaction is given in connection with gravitational waves.
Their genesis can be explained by moving bodies (gravitating masses) which emit fields of gravitation propagating with the speed of light. This is a topic in several measurements actually being in progress now [Abr 92], [Ace 02], [And 02], [Bar 99], [Wil 02].
This means, that every electrical charge permanently emits electrical field, and this field propagates through the space with finite speed after it is emitted. The propagation of the field is not influenced by the position of the charge any further as asoon as the field is away from its source. So every charge emits DC-field permanently even if the charge is moving during time, and as soon as this field is sent into the space, an alteration of the position of the charge does not alter this part of the field any more, which already left the charge. This means: If a field source (for instance a charge) is moving in the space during time, it always emits field from the actual position where it is in time and space, so that the field will be observed continuously coming from a changing position.
Regarding the conception of (a.): The instantaneous propagation of the fields (with infinite speed) allows the superposition of the field strength simply linearly along the x-axis, following Coulomb’s law. The consequence is, that the total charge configuration (of all four charges) does not produce any field at all (along the x-axis), so that a person observing the field (at the x-axis) will always come to the measurement of E 0.
The reason is:
The fact that the field strength is zero (along the x-axis) can be understood even without a calculation just by enhancing the dimensionality of the example to three dimensions. Than we would have two periodically contracting and expanding spherical shells (one with positive charge “+q” and the other one with negative charge “-q”), of which fig.2 shows a twodimensional cut in the plane of the paper. And it is well known, that a charged sphere produces the same electrostatic field on its outside as a point charge in the middle of the sphere. But this statement is valid for both spheres (the positively charged sphere as well as the negatively charged sphere), so that both spheres produce a constant (DC-)field independently from the alteration of their radii during time. But in our example both spheres produce fields with the same absolute values but with the opposite algebraic signs, because both sphere have the same centre point. This means that the field strengths of both spheres compensate each other exactly to zero for all time. And of course, this consideration remains valid, if the dimensionality is reduced to one as shown in fig.1. Thus it is clear, that an oscillating charge configuration according to (1.4) and fig.1 does not produce any electrostatic field along the x-axis – as long as instant propagation of the field (with infinite speed) is assumed.