Dear Dr. Haisch:

Thank you very much for sending us your latest paper on ZPF.

I was also somewhat amazed to see the latest broadcast by Bob Park, where he

argues that advocates of ZPF should be treated, in effect, as lunatics and

outcasts, without the same rights to scientific treatment that the

scientific method is supposed to offer to all serious points of view.

Jack Sarfatti: I have not seen what Park has written. He is over-reacting to

the fact that there is so much hype about zero point energy breakthroughs in

the New Age Flake Press like Nick Cook's book "Hunt For The Zero Point",

Brian O Leary's book and others. Also Bernie and Hal have not helped this

media situation. Joe Firmage, the brief Dot.Com 20's something millionaire,

caused a lot of damage by including their work in his public talks some

heard by important physicists like Brian Greene who then no doubt went on to

tell all his colleagues about Joe being a crackpot. Then you have political

groups like UFO Disclosure and Ban US Space Weapons citing Bernie and Hal as

backing up their phony claims of secret US Black Ops zero point energy

anti-gravity weapons systems, oil energy alternatives and other nutty

allegations. This, I suspect, is why Parks is on the war path against Hal

and Bernie.

Paul: At some level, all you are saying is that the

"1/2 w**w" terms that we usually throw out from the Hamiltonians of quantum

field theory (QFT) should not be

totally thrown out, because they may have physical implications, like the

Casimir effect. Given that this view

is endorsed very clearly but briefly in Weinberg's text, clearly and at

greater length in the equally authoritative

text of Zinn-Justin, and assumed in virtually of the Hawkings and Forward

stuff, it is incredible that anyone should

brand it as heresy.

Jack: I doubt that this is what Parks was alluding to.

Paul: Yet, at the same time, as a confessed heretic myself, I would like to

suggest an alternative to the ZPF idea

which I hope someone will consider seriously.

The key idea is as follows. First, we assume (for now) that the universe is

governed by the

basic "Schrodinger equation"

psi-dot = i H psi.

In the traditional texts on QFT, the operator H is derived as follows.

First we work out the Hamiltonian functional

H for some classical Lagrangian field theory. ( It should be script-H, but

this is ASCII.) And then,

for each reference to a field phi(i,x,t), we replace that reference by the

"corresponding" operator field.

That gives us the H of QFT. It also gives us zero point terms. And then, in

the usual texts, it says something like "we can

just assume that these infinite-energy terms actually equal zero, because

they couldn't affect anything anyway."

Now: here is my proposal: IN THIS quantization step, I propose that we

should still DEFINE the quantum Hamiltonian

as the result of the usual substitution, BUT WITH the classical

"multiplication" operator replaced by the NORMAL PRODUCT

in all cases. In that case, the quantum mechanical Hamiltonian DOES NOT

HAVE zero point terms at all.

This becomes part of the DEFINITION of the theory, of the quantization

process itself.

Jack: No this is wrong. Indeed, the evidence from astronomy is that the

acceleration of the universe and the dark matter are zero point vacuum

energy contributions to the variable cosmological /\ field. The basic way

this works is in Peacock's "Cosmological Physics" and Milonni's book "The

Quantum Vacuum". Then there is spontaneous emission, the Lamb shift et-al.

==========

There are many advantages of this formulation, some of which I discovered

from work along a totally different line.

This formulation is what motivated me to re-examine everything I could find

on the Casimir effect, on the suppression

of stimulated emission in certain classes of lasers, and so on -- all of

which convinces me that this is a viable model

consistent with everything we know. What we lose in terms of short-term

hopes for technology we may make up for in other sectors

of new possibilities.

Among the pieces of logic here....

in the general case, the ordinary quantization map is not even

well-defined. Sequences of products in the classical

Hamiltonian can be written in any order, yet the field operators do not

always commute. But the normal-product

quantization map is well-defined.

And then... ONE PART of my paper quant-ph 0202138... it turns out that the

normal form Hamiltonian really corresponds

'to the Hamiltonian of the original classical field theory, in a way that

the ordinary one does not.

Let me be more specific here.

The statistical moments of an unknown classical field phi(i,x) at any time

are usually defined as:

un = < phi(i1,x1)*phi(i2,x2)*...*phi(in,xn)>

At first glance, the collection of such moments would appear to form a

vector in the ordinary Fock-Hilbert

space, the same one that a bosonic wave function would be defined over. But

it does not: it does not have

a finite norm, even for fields phi which do. However, by scaling the

moments to have a unit norm

in Fock-Hilbert space, and appending the conjugate variables, we do arrive

at a matrix rho over Fock-Hilbert space

which represents the statistical moments of the state of a classical field

-- the "classical density matrix" as defined

in quant-ph 0202138.

It then turns out that tr(rho H) yields the expected value of the energy of

that classical field, exactly, **IF** H is

the normal form Hamiltonian. This exact equivalence between a classical and

a quantum field theory is of some interest.

====

I do have very detailed (if tedious) proof typed up for every single

equation in quant-ph 0202138. Unfortunately,

I have found some holes in the VERBAL analysis of the implications; more

precisely, the Liouville equation for

the dynamics of the field operators is NOT enough by itself to deduce all

the rest of QFT, even though Weinberg's arguments

appear to suggest that it is. I have some ideas about how to deal with

that, but competing pressures here at NSF

limit the time I have to study such extensions. The normal product part,

however, is quite clear and quite rigorous.

Best regards,

Paul W.

P.S. quant-ph 0202138 also suggests an alternative way to replace the

present Higgs model, so as to eliminate

the need for renormalization. This would only go through with the normal

product Hamiltonian.