Giovanni

Accessing the article costs $ 25. Prove that I'm wrong it's impossible because I did not positively affirm anything: I just asked questions.

Physics Essays is a peer-reviewed scientific journal. No pseudoscience in the work of Neumann.

Another independent verification of the fenomenon: https://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/1559-4-libor-neumann-experimental-verification-of-electromagnetic-gravity-effect-weighing-light-and-heat.html

Yes you are right: the entire discussion is about the Newtonian approximation. In the past I have spoken with Puthoff about how to pass from Newton to his PV interpretation of GR. It should be possible. But is not the core of the discussion: here I would like to discuss the Newtonian approximation.

Hi all,

I would like to pose some questions about Gravity as a zero-point-fluctuation force of Puthoff.

The article: Zero Point Field cause an oscillation on fundamental particles. (electrons and quarks) and this cause a mutual interaction between those particles. Making the calculations Puthoff observes the correct dependence on distance. (r^-2)

The questions are:  to simulate the presence of a particle outside a macroscopic object it should be sufficient to recreate the variable electromagnetic field that the particle would generate by oscillating. It would be enough to have such a field and the macroscopic object would be attracted by the gravity of the 'simulated particle'. Quite right? What are the practical difficulties in creating such a field?

I was motivated by the Louis Rancourt findings: basically it seems that light attract matter as a gravity source.

Ref: Effect of light on gravitational attraction

finally, by simply looking for "pair production tidal forces", I found the following article:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269317307888

I do not have the right background to understand the content but some sentences are clear to me and it seems extremely relevant to the discussion. It's exactly what i was searching for: a gravitational analog of the Schwinger effect based on tidal forces.

The only thing that must now be done is showing that in this black hole 'atmosphere' photons can be superluminal.

I mean: the hypothesis of a relationship between G and virtual pairs density is maybe untenable. I'm really not sure. I will write a longer post this Saturday if i can. 

I think that less virtual pairs implies greater c. But some simple considerations can show that the hypothesis on the first post should be rejected.

Hello everyone,

It's been several months since I opened the discussion Scharnhorst effect + EM field greater than the Schwinger limit = c value increase on the NASA forum 'New Physics for Space Technology'.

The focus of the discussion are the 2 articles:

(A) Does the speed of light depend upon the vacuum ? (non-peer-reviewed) 

(B) The quantum vacuum as the origin of the speed of light (a highly cropped version of the previous that has passed peer-review)

The content of the articles concerns the constants ε₀, μ₀ and c₀ which according to the authors depend on the physical characteristics of the virtual pairs.

Over time I am convinced that the same theoretical treatment should also apply to the constant G. In this regard I have found nothing but the article Principles of Gravity Manipulation via the Quantum Vacuum . 'Journal of Theoretics' is a little known peer reviewed journal. But I have found also theories about variation of G over time or in space.

It is clear that in the absence of a gravitational field source virtual pairs have an isotropic distribution and their gravity is zero. In the presence of a field source, for example a point-like mass, the isotropy is broken. In the example of a point-like mass the distribution of virtual pairs has spherical symmetry. When we measure the gravity force that this field exerts on a test charge we then measure the force generated by the point-like mass + the virtual pairs (whose distribution, as already said, is no longer isotropic).

This implies that G should be written as a function of ρ (the density of virtual pairs) and τ(the average lifetime of such pairs). Anything that can influence ρ and  τ also influence G. For example in (A) we consider the effect of an electric field on the lifetime of virtual pairs. (equation 51)

(Note: equation 51 holds only for an electric field lower than the Schwinger limit)

So an electric field (even lower than the Schwinger limit) can have an influence, even if small, on G.

I have posted also on physicsforum.com: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-there-a-gravitational-variant-of-the-schwinger-limit.941397/

I define the Schwinger limit as the minimal value for the E field to produce the Schwinger effect 

From the previous:

Quote

However, the electric field required to see this effect is astronomically huge, E_critical~ 10^(16) V/cm, and so it has not yet been directly observed, even using the strongest lasers.

Is not true.

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/09/16/science/scientists-use-light-to-create-particles.html

Ok finally i have found a clear explanations:

Read the paragraph Schwinger effect

the key words are "and continue to move apart".

Personal hypothesis:

So, since the distance between the now reals electron and positron increases they are not more a dipole: they are no more capable of absorbing photons (single electrons and positrons cannot absorb photons)....so for the Scharnhorst effect the speed of light increase.

(sorry for me all those things are obvious....but for the readers are not)

Yes but this is about 'Influence of the intensity on the propagation of light'

....and or me that's ok that there is no influence.

I'm talking about the following paragraph.

I thought that your statement

Quote

I don't see a relation to the Schwinger limit.

was about relation between the Schwinger limit and the interaction between external fields and speed of light in vacuum

Anyway searching for the dailymail article i discovered this:

http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/28606

<<Quantum effects such as vacuum polarization in gravitational fields appear to permit "superluminal" photon propagation and give a fascinating new perspective on our understanding of time and causality in the microworld.>>

I have not read it yet so i cannot say but it seems relevant.

Quote

But I don't see a relation to the Schwinger limit.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1711.05194.pdf (Klaus Scharnhorst: peer reviewed and well known)

From the previous article: paragraph 2.2.2

Quote

Propagation of light in macroscopic, constant magnetic and electrical fields....From out the modern point of view of quantum electrodynamics a null result does not come unexpected.....  recognizes that the strong electric field used by Stark is too weak to give rise to any nonlinear quantum electrodynamic effects.

In short: with fields greater than Schwinger limit you can affect the speed of light. (or, at least, >= Schwinger limit it's a necessary condition)

https://www.mpg.de/8741005/radiationoutburst_galaxy_ic310

From the linked article:

Quote

“No object can suddenly light up its entire surface faster than light takes to travel across it,” says Julian Sitarek from the Institut de Fisica d'Altes Energies (IFAE) in Barcelona.

Quote

 couldn't get to the link either

try now with the link at the post number 4.

Edited: a cut and paste mistake. Sorry. Now works.

Quote

But I really wouldn’t rely on the Mail as a source of information on anything.

Good point. With little time i will find the original source.

I was motivated by this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2853083/Scientists-lightning-sparking-supermassive-black-hole-appears-travel-faster-speed-light.html

Maybe there is a simpler explanation but anyway is interesting.

 

Thanks for your answer.

I believe that I will avoid the General Relativity (that I do not know) and I will use the  Gravitoelectromagnetism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitoelectromagnetism) (an approximation of the General Relativity similar to the Maxwell equations) that recently also has a 'quantum' version (https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.07207)

Since the equations are similar to those of Maxwell, the derivation of the threshold value should not be very different from that of the electromagnetic counterpart. (The Schwinger limit of Quantum Electrodynamics) Or at least I hope so.

I really do not know the applicability conditions of the GEM approximation: they hold for so high fields? I will check this.

Is there a gravitational variant of the Schwinger limit? I mean: a strong gravitational field can separate virtual dipoles with tidal forces. The force applied to the positron is different from that applied to the electron (though both are attractive) and, if this difference is high enough, the two particles can be separated permanently. Do you agree with this? Has this occurrence been studied in physics in the literature of the past? I have not found anything on the internet and it seems strange.