About the quantization and energy of free space

by G. Sardin

Copyrights 24 March, 1998. All rights reserved

Quantization of free space

Before treating the eventual energy of free space or vacuum, let us at first consider its own quantization. In order to do so our conception of elementary particles and free space should be widen and treated conjointly. In effect, an evident quantization of space is represented by elementary particles, which are here considered to be excited quantum states. In a first approximation let us assume that free space is mainly populated by quanta similar to photons but in an aenergetic state, that we have called aetherons. Space would be full of these quanta moving in all directions at the speed of light, but since being aenergetic these quanta would interfere only through the wave function and would constitute the ground states of free space. They would thus form an aenergetic background, often called aether and considered in the present context to have the nature of a field.

Let us now consider that these free space ground states may occasionally acquire energy, undergoing diverse degrees of alteration. The milder one turns them into photons, seen as quanta (mathematical frame) or aetherons (physical frame) having acquired energy and spin but having preserved their intrinsic celerity. Deeper alteration of the structure of the quanta leads them to acquire mass at the expense of the lost of the intrinsic celerity. The fundamental state of the free space quanta is constituted by a pair of opposite electric charges spinning an orbital which structures them, as well as neutral elementary particles. Charged particles would correspond to the deepest alteration of the quanta that would dissociate into their two constituents, corresponding to the opposite electric charges.

Elementary particles can thus be seen as quanta that would have hopped off from their original aenergetic state. In particles high energy collision experiments many aenergetic quanta from free space are brought to excited states, but like sparks instantaneously vanish, releasing off the energy acquired and returning so to their initial aenergetic ground state. So, free space can be more widely looked at as populated of quanta in two main types of states, an aenergetic fundamental one that would derive from an inner structural equilibrium (states that would constitute a background representing the referential ground level), and also by energetic quantum states deriving from an inner structural unbalance (forming a foreground of upper level). Regarding massive particles, apart from the electron and the proton, all other particles are unstable and in fact are nothing else but ephemeral excited states of the aenergetic quanta of free space. Hence, free space may be conceived as made of quanta which may be in an aenergetic or energetic state, respectively corresponding to their fundamental equilibrium state or off it.

Once particles are conceived as excited states of the originally null net energy quanta of free space, it becomes much easier, within this enlarged conceptual frame, to understand them. Particles are no longer seen as different physical bodies but are only different excited states of the fundamental quantum of free space from which they have emerged. So, physical reality is enlarged to include an underlying world, which differs from our energetic world, by being made of null net energy quanta. Some call it the Aether, we have called it the Primordial Matrix, to stress the fact that our energetic world is considered to have emerged from it. Energetic quanta would spout up from free space through a transition from their null net energy ground state to an upper one. So, particle physicists should start questioning their maintening the belief that the large diversity of particles (hadrons) is fruit of their different composition (quarks) as the Standard model does, in an erratic and misguiding way. Besides, its conception of particles is quite narrow since restrained to a single category of particles, the hadrons, and its disconnection from a wider frame impoverishes the conception of particles. Keep also in mind that, in spite of official claims, quarks have never been evidenced but only interpreted (theoretically and experimentally) and this through much artificial and unreliable ways. Apparently some physicists are pleased in mistaking the map for the territory, i.e. in mixing the conceptualization of reality with the reality itself.

Energy of free space

Recently there is in literature an increase of interest on the supposed energy of free space, and still more, on the eventuality of pulling out energy from it. However, opinions are discrepant. So, let us join the debate and express our point of view. Free space must be globally aenergetic otherwise it would be opaque (i.e. interactive). Thus, any residual background energy of free space may be at the most extremely small. So, is it really meaningful to talk about the energy of free space? We think so since it can reasonably be considered that the universe, which is material and thus energetic, has emerged from free space, whatever the details of the process. But how can free space be aenergetic and energetic at the same time? At first sight both standpoints look irreconcilable.

The apparent contradiction is removed by introducing the concept of net energy instead of just energy. We insist (since we have already stressed it in a previous load) that progress of fundamental physics related to our conceptualization of free space will be highly delayed and impoverished until introducing and assuming the concept of net energy and more concretely that of null net energy. In effect, quanta from free space may have energetic components, which may be quite high, but their resultant must be null, otherwise they would be energetically interactive and thus space would be opaque.

In order to solve the conceptual puzzle of the nature of free space, let us listen carefully to the whispers that reach us from the cosmos and try to catch their meaning. They tell us that it is populated of galaxies, that these are on their turn mainly populated of stars, which are mainly composed of hydrogen. The hydrogen atom is composed of a proton and an electron, so the first element of the logical puzzle rises from being aware of the fact that the cosmos is asymmetrical in its composition, since mainly based on two different particles, the electron and the proton.

To progress in solving this issue through logical progressive deductions from experimental data, let us now focus on another point, complementary to the one on asymmetry. In effect, this fundamental asymmetry is somewhat surprising since it could be expected that particles and antiparticles should compensate, however this is fortunately not the case otherwise the universe would have self annihilated. If we assume on one hand the original production of pairs of particles and antiparticles, and on the other hand we observe only electrons and protons (from hydrogen) where are then their antiparticles, i.e. the positrons and the antiprotons? To solve this fundamental compositional asymmetry of our material universe, two alternatives should be considered.

The first one stands in considering that protons and antiprotons were originally conjointly formed but in assuming that antiprotons (p-) have degraded into electrons (e-), thus leading to the resultant space content of only protons (p+) and electrons (e- ). In the orbital conception of elementary particles the presumed cause of the weak asymmetrical behavior between particles and antiparticles, has been attributed to the different relative orientation of their spin and magnetic moment, leading thus e.g. to an intrinsic asymmetry between protons and antiprotons. However, let us consider a second alternative, which stands in the mutation of the positron into a proton. Most physicists would straightforwardly reject it since it is endoenergetic and thus apparently impossible without an appropriate energy supply. Nevertheless, we will not disregard its eventuality in extreme conditions such as in a high gravitational field as within stars, and even more, we will argue it without preconceived prejudices.

Quantization of charged elementary Particles

From the Orbital Conception of elementary particles, the ordinary concept of energy is widen and their massive energy is substituted by the one of field energy, which includes the massive energy but also the energy deriving from the magnetic moment. A supra entity correlated to the field energy, specific of elementary particles and called Q, has been expressed through the product of the mass (massive energy), the magnetic moment (magnetic energy) and their structuring radius:

Q = mass * magnetic moment * radius

This quantity Q has been already defined in the load entitled "Unification of the electron and the proton". Let us mention that the electron, the muon, the proton and the hydrogen atom have the same value of Q and thus they correspond to the same global quantification but with different partial quantifications.

Formulation of the net energy

The massive energy of an elementary particle, which corresponds to the total net energy of its structural orbital, can be expressed as the sum of the net kinetic energy (T) and the potential energy (V).

E = T + V  with  T = E1- E2

V expresses a potential energy, attributed to all singly charged particles, which has a unique value of 0.51 MeV and derives from the dissociation of the original dual system constituted by a neutral quantum. T is the net orbital energy associated to its structural kinetics and deriving from the two components E1 and E2, where E1 expresses the energy associated to the magnetic moment and E2 the one associated to the mass.

The expression of the orbital energy E1, related to the magnetic moment is:

E1 = Integral of [F1* dr] = Integral of [(q2/r2)*K1/(mo*c2)*dr]

where dr = ro - r and corresponds to the orbital shift from its equilibrium radius ro = q2/(mo*c2), r is the effective mean radius and  mo*c2 = 0.51 MeV. K1 is an energy component proceeding from the carrier kinetics which has a relativistic and quantized behavior. It is related to the magnetic moment and its effect is compressive (Lorentz force).

The expression of the orbital energy E2, related to the restoring force F2, is:

E2 = Integral of [F2 * dr] = Integral of [(K2/r)*dr]

where K2 is an energy component proceeding from the reaction to the compressive effect of K1 and which acts as a restoring force antagonistic to the compressive one. K2 follows a non linear and quantized behavior.

Both K1 and K2 (action and reaction) are dependent on the carrier speed and on its orbital radius. Their quantization obeys to different rules since the magnetic and gravitational fields, from which they respectively derive, behave differently.

Since T = E1 - E2 it results that for K1 = K2 and r = ro = q2/(mo*c2) the orbital kinetic energy T is null. This is the case of the electron whose orbital kinetic net energy is null and thus its structuring orbital is undetectable, so the electron may appear as a structureless punctual body corresponding in fact to the corpuscular carrier. The electron constitutes the unique charged particle whose structuring orbital, being in equilibrium, has a null net energy corresponding to the orbital ground state. All its structural kinetic energy is stored in form of magnetic moment, and this is why its magnetic moment is so high comparatively to the rest of particles. Its mass corresponds solely to the potential energy from the dissociation of its original neutral quantum. (This part relative to the quantization of charged elementary particles has been already and more explicitly developed in the previous load).

This orbital dependent interpretation of both the magnetic moment and the mass of elementary particles bears an important consequence. These two magnitudes are not independent but on the contrary they are straightforwardly interlinked, since they constitute the action and the reaction, leading to a mutual quantization. The action and the reaction adjust in a way that their difference leads to a quantized value of the magnitude Q, which can be the same for different particles. However the proportion between its components, the magnetic moment and the mass can vary. Expressed in terms of  fields it is equivalent to say that the proportion between the magnetic and gravitational fields can vary.

Let us focus on the concept of energy, on the search for the identification of its ultimate nature and on the hypothetical possibility of extracting energy from free space. What has to say the orbital conception of elementary particles in this respect. Within its frame their rest energy (mass) and magnetic moment have been defined as secondary entities, in the sense that they both are orbital dependent, in other words they derive from the kinetic characteristics of the structure of elementary particles. So, both magnitudes can vary, expressed through the multiplicity of particles, and are dependent on each specific quantization of their structural orbital. Only the electric charge is an intrinsic parameter. Its value is unique and does not depend on any kinetics, so the electric charge represents the most fundamental magnitude from the quantization of free space.

Particles are here conceived as structured by a punctual electric charge (carrier) with an intrinsically confined motion (orbital) that generates the magnetic moment and the mass. Both are intimately related and represent two features of the same thing, i.e. of the orbital kinetics. The electric, magnetic and gravitational fields represent three different aspects of a unique field entity. These force fields are carried by the same virtual carrier which differs only in its quantum state.

Extracting energy from free space? Non conservation of Energy?

Any intend of extracting energy from free space would require finding out how to provoke the hopping off of null net energy quanta to excited energetic states. The plausibility to reach reproducing nature´s path is not evident at all. However, let us suppose that this process may not need any energy supply and that the massive energy acquired by the quanta is provided by an internal adjustment of the field energy, in which the magnetic moment is lowered proportionally to the mass increment (trend observed from elementary particles, e.g. between the electron and the muon).

Part of the energy in the form of magnetic moment would turn into massive energy, however the total of these two forms of energy is preserved. In the process nothing has been created, but only a transformation has taken place. Let us remind that there are only two internal rearrangements of quanta from free space that lead to stable states, corresponding to the electron and the proton, the two sole massive particles that are stable. All the rest of pseudo particles are in fact only unstable excited quanta and so are not really particles (similarly we do not consider each excited state of the H atom as being a different atom, so it should be logical to do the same with elementary particles).

Is there an energy input within Stars? Is there production of Hydrogen within stars?

Quantum entities from free space are considered to be able to restructure from their initial null net energy state to an energetic one. This mutation could take place without any energy supply, it would only correspond to a redistribution of the field energy but preserving its total content, expressed by the conservation of the correlated magnitude Q. For example, the electron and the proton contain the same amount of inner field energy, but a different distribution of its magnetic and massive components.

So, a positron could hypothetically mutate into a proton through internal conversion, leading thus to a higher energetic state at the expense of a lower magnetic state. Apparently this process does not take place spontaneously with a probability high enough as to be observed at the laboratory level. However, it might take place within very high gravitational fields such as the ones within stars. As a consequence at the same time that the sun consumes hydrogen (H) it could also be generated H from the motution of the positron. So the combustion equilibrium of the sun would be defined by the balance between the output and input of H, through the dissociation of neutral quanta (gamma) into pairs of electron and positron with the consecutive restructuration of the positron into a proton. This would represent a case of non conservation of energy, taking place within the particle. So, stars could not be seen anymore solely as furnaces burning fossil H, but having a balanced input and output of H fuel.

Attempting to extract energy from free space seems not to be an easy issue. In any case it would previously be of great help to get a deeper understanding of the process used by nature in order to pull off matter from free space. The basic scheme that we have proposed goes by way of the perturbation of the null net energy equilibrium states, i.e. of the excitation of the ground state quanta of free space.
Go to main page