Hal Puthoff vs Steven Weinberg on ZPE
Jack Sarfatti
http://www.pbs.org/safarchive/3_ask/archive/qna/3282_hpsweinberg.html
I wish there had been time on the show to see you
and Steven Weinberg debate the existence of zero point energy. You, for
example, states that there is enough energy out in space in the volume
of a coffee cup to evaporate all the world's oceans. Weinberg estimates
that the energy in space the size of the earth is no more than a gallon
of gasoline. Can you explain how you arrived at your estimate and why
you think Weinberg is incorrect?
(Puthoff) "As pointed out by Prof. Weinberg, a
straightforward calculation using quantum field theory does indeed yield
an infinite energy density for the zero-point energy (ZPE) of empty
space. What's wrong with this calculation is the assumption that
electromagnetic waves of all frequencies exist and contribute to this
energy density."
Sarfatti: Correct if you assume a space-time continuum and complete
randomness of the ZPE.
However, virtual photons have positive zero point energy density and
virtual electron-positron pairs, not mentioned by Puthoff have negative
zero point energy density. You need to look at all the other fields
including perhaps supersymmetry partners. Hal is only looking at a small
piece of the whole, i.e. the virtual photons, and then only the 2
transverse polarization states.
(Puthoff) "However, physicists Sakharov, Wheeler, and others argue that,
because of quantum effects, the concept of a well-behaved spacetime
geometry must lose its meaning as one approaches the so-called Planck
frequency (wavelength ~10^-33 cm) where the geometry dissolves into a
quantum "foam-like structure."
Yes, OK but again the tacit assumption is "vacuum coherence" = 0 because
they are not even thinking "vacuum coherence" in that context.
(Puthoff) "Assuming a high•frequency cutoff at this frequency, they
estimate an energy density which, though not infinite, might as well be
for all practical purposes (mass equivalent of ~10^94 g/cm-cubed)."
Yes OK, note that c^2 ~ 10^21 cm^2/sec^2 and 94 + 21 = 115
that's my 10^115 ergs/cc number from before.
(Puthoff) "Feynman, arguing that what counts is not the maximum
frequency available in the ZPE background, but rather the frequency at
which meaningful interactions between the background and nuclei cut off,
reduces this estimate further to nuclear energy densities (~10^14
g/cm-cubed), still an exceedingly large number."
OK i.e.
h/cLp*^4 = 10^-27/3x10^10x 10^-52 = 10^52 - 37 ~ (1/3) 10^15 gms/cc -
close enough.
Yes, OK that is my Lp* ~ 1 fermi ~ 10^-13 cm from the world hologram formula
Lp* ~ Lp^2/3(c/H)^1/3 ~ (10^-33)^2/3(10^28/3) ~ 10^-13 cm
Where c/H is the asymptotic De Sitter "horizon" value for our Universe
as suggested by J. Bjorken at SLAC who endorse's G. E. Volovik's model
that overlaps mine.
Curious Tech Gnostic numerology in any case, eh? Maybe it's telling us
something?
In this model, Hologram Entropy of Universe saturates at ~
(10^28)^2/(10^-13)^2 = 10^(56 + 26) ~ 10^82 Bekenstein BITS
This is the square of the Eddington number 10^41!
The Tech Gnostic Plot just thickened.
(Puthoff) "Why the remaining discrepancy between the high estimates
given above by those who approach the problem from a quantum theoretical
point of view, and the low estimates of those who, like Weinberg,
approach it from a point of view of cosmology and gravitation?"
Here is how Weinberg should have gotten his number. He should have
gotten it from cosmological data! The universe is flat. Therefore the
dark zero point energy density of negative pressure
http://supernova.lbl.gov/~evlinder/linderteachin1.pdf is ~ 3/4 critical
density of 10^-29 h*^2 gm/cc where h* ~ 0.72 and h*^2 ~ 0.4. So 10^-29
gm/cc ~ 10^-8 ergs/cc (I originally estimated 10^-7 ergs per cc - close
enough).
Earth's radius ~ 6x10^8 cm
So that's ~ 10^-8 x10^27 ~ 10^19 ergs of dark energy in an Earth volume
~ 370,000 horsepower-hours ~ 270,000 Kilowatt-Hours ~ 10^9 Btu
http://www.wiredwales.com/info/c_factor/energy.htm
You can boil more than a cup of coffee! This is more energy than you can
get in a gallon of gasoline.
(Puthoff) This discrepancy is symptomatic of a long-standing unresolved
conflict between quantum theory and general relativity. If one assumes,
as the cosmologists do, that the ZPE must contribute to spacetime
curvature, then the lack of observable strong curvature must mean that
the ZPE energy density is vanishingly small."
Correct, and that is exactly what my vacuum superfluid formula
/\zpf = (Quantum of Area)^-1[(Quantum of Volume)|Vacuum Coherence|^2 - 1]
solves!
(Puthoff) "However, the error may be in the assumption. Since this is an
issue of high import, a search of the literature reveals several models
that attempt to reconcile the conflict in other ways, e.g., by assuming
a fine-tuned, negative-energy-density ZPE associated with fermions
(e.g., protons, neutrons, electrons) that cancels that associated with
bosons (e.g., photons), or that only mass-energy departures from the
homogeneous ZPE background curve space."
Hal doesn't get it! He misses the whole problem that is greatly vexing
Ed Witten from the real IAS at Princeton not the one from Austin where
Hal is. Sure you can make models like super-strings where /\ = 0, but
then you cannot explain the dark energy where
(c^4/G)/\ ~ 10^-8 ergs/cc
i.e. /\ ~ (H/c)^2 ~ (10^28)^-2
Ed Witten says that this is the "greatest crisis" in his career!
Hal does not know what the problem is here.
"The Question is: What is The Question?" John Archibald Wheeler.
Hal has failed to ask the right question here. He then gives the
following answer to the wrong question:
(Puthoff) "In answer to the question "what could have a lower energy
than empty space?" the answer is "an empty space with lower energy."
Although one might naively assume that by definition the vacuum has zero
energy and therefore can't go lower, a review of the literature shows
that the vacuum state can have different energy values, and that a given
vacuum state can under certain conditions decay to a state of lower
energy (see, e.g., Fulcher et al., "The Decay of the Vacuum," Sci. Am.,
vol. 241, p. 150, Dec. 1979). In the Casimir effect, for example, in
which plates are driven together by ZPE forces, the vacuum with metal
plates far apart is more energetic than the vacuum with metal plates
closer together, so the vacuum decays to a lower-energy state,
transferring its energy (by the law of conservation of energy) into the
kinetic energy of the plates moving closer, finally to be released as
heat when the plates collide."
There Hal goes again with that darn Casimir effect! :-)
Hal also likes a the very wrong idea "or that only mass-energy
departures from the homogeneous ZPE background curve space."
Why is it wrong? See John Peacock's pp. 25-26 of "Cosmological Physics."
The reason it is wrong is that Hal's idea here violated Einstein's
equivalence principle + Heisenberg's uncertainty principle that imply w
= (zero point pressure)/(zero point energy density) = -1.
Of course from Hal's PV papers we see that he has no real regard for
Einstein's theory of gravity. This disqualifies Hal as a serious
contender in the mainstream theory game for solving the biggest puzzle
in physics today i.e. the cosmological constant paradox. Hal's solution
here is way too cheap. It is simpler than is possible in Einstein's
sense. It is crazy, but not crazy enough to be true in Niels Bohr's sense.
"I wish there had been time on the show for you
and Hal Puthoff to debate the existence of zero point energy. Puthoff,
for example, states that there is enough energy out in space in the
volume of a coffee cup to evaporate all the world's oceans. You state
that the energy in space the size of the earth is probably equal to no
more than a gallon of gasoline. This seems like a big difference! Can
you explain how you arrived at your estimate and why you think Puthoff
is incorrect?"
I think Weinberg made a mistake in arithmetic, or I did above?
Homework problem: Who made a mistake in arithmetic here, me or Weinberg?
BTW Hal's arithmetic above is OK, but his main idea is wrong.
(Weinberg) "We don't have a way of reliably
calculating the energy in empty space. When we try to use our present
quantum field theory to do this calculation, the answer in the simplest
approximation comes out infinite, which is clearly nonsense. My
estimate, that the energy in a volume of empty space the size of the
earth is not greater than the energy in a gallon of gasoline, is a crude
upper limit that was not based on direct calculations of the energy in
any fundamental theory, but was based instead on observations of the way
that the universe is expanding. If the energy density in empty space
were much greater than this upper limit, it would produce enormous
gravitational fields, which would mean that the universe would have to
be expanding much more rapidly in order to avoid collapsing, just as a
rocket leaving a heavy planet like Jupiter has to travel much faster
than one that leaves a lighter planet like the earth. But (as I
explained in a part of my interview with Alan Alda that was not
broadcast) it really doesn't matter how much energy there is in empty
space. The conservation of energy tells us that if we get energy out of
empty space, then we have to leave it in a condition of lower energy.
But what could have lower energy than empty space?"
I didn't quite understand the principle of zero-point
energy on the show. Can you please give me a simple explanation of the
basic theory or point me the direction where I could read about it on
the web or a recent publication?
(Puthoff) "A very readable summary can be found
in Scientific American itself, in an article by Prof. Timothy Boyer in
the August 1985 issue, entitled "The Classical Vacuum." As to the origin
of the term "zero•point energy," it simply means that for any vibration
(acoustic, electromagnetic, etc.) there remains, even at a temperature
of absolute zero, a small residual energy that has its roots in the
quantum uncertainty principle, a nonvanishing "quantum jiggle," as it
were. In the context of the program, the possibility of an enormous
reservoir of zero-point energy in space (the vacuum) associated with
electromagnetic fields derives from the fact that although the residual
energy at any given frequency is quite small (at the level of the
uncertainty principle), there are contributions to the overall energy
density from waves of all frequencies, propagating in all directions,
and the sum of all these contributions is calculated to be quite large."
"I didn't quite understand the principle of zero-point
energy on the show. Can you please give me a simple explanation of the
basic theory or point me the direction where I could read about it on
the web or a recent publication?"
(Weinberg) "Electric and magnetic fields and other
fields are subject to a version of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle:
it is not possible to have a state in which a field, and the rate at
which it is changing, both vanish. Consequently empty space, even far
from any matter, is permeated with continually fluctuating fields. The
effects of these fields are very weak under ordinary circumstances, but
they can be measured --for instance, by observing a force between
parallel metal plates due to the change produced by these plates in the
fluctuating electric and magnetic fields in the space between the
plates. This is known as the Casimir effect, and has been studied
experimentally and theoretically for many years."
"On the show we saw the device in your lab where
the temperatures were diverging. Did you find the reason --was it an
error or does this device actually show some promise for generating zero
point energy?"
(Puthoff) "In this case we were running a "dummy"
(control) cell, comparing two parallel methods of energy measurement,
each of which should have read zero. One did read zero as expected,
while the other deviated with roughly a one-tenth-watt error, traced to
a problem with a small pump used in the measurement chamber to move
fluid through devices to be evaluated. This was presented as a
demonstration of the care that must be taken to carefully calibrate
measurement apparatus before relying on it to detect results of interest."
"How did people first discover the concept zero-point energy?"
(Puthoff) "This was an exciting example of the play
back and forth between theory and experiment. In the early days of the
development of quantum theory, a slight discrepancy was noticed between
the calculated and measured energy levels of excited hydrogen gas.
Although the calculations were carried out using the new quantum theory,
no thought had been given to the concept that perhaps the atom did not
exist in a void, but rather in a sea of fluctuating electromagnetic
radiation. Once the possibility was taken into account that not only
material systems but fields as well were subject to fluctuations
associated with the quantum uncertainty principle, then the effects of
field fluctuations on the electron orbits could be taken into account,
and they were found to account for the discrepancy. Measurement of this
discrepancy by Willis Lamb, now called the Lamb shift, led to a Nobel
prize for Lamb, and further development of the understanding of the role
of vacuum field fluctuations led to the development of quantum
electrodynamics with its associated zero-point energy concept.
Nowadays, perhaps the most discussed demonstration of the zero-point
energy concept is as follows. If a radio is taken into a shielded room,
the stations can no longer be heard because the shielding stops the
radio waves from entering. Similarly, closely-spaced metal plates
slightly shield the interior region from certain frequencies of the
fluctuating electromagnetic background ZPE. As a result, the radiation
pressure of the waves between the plates pushing them apart is somewhat
weaker than the radiation outside pushing them together. The force
pushing them together is known as the Casimir force, named for its
discoverer."
That damn Casimir force again! A false lead if you want to understand
flying saucer G-Engines! Hal is very keen on flying saucers. So am I.
"If you ever find more about this energy, how would
you plan to heat a whole house? I thought that this subject was
interesting. I think it would be interesting to use the energy around us
to make heat or use it for other things to help us."
(Puthoff) If we are successful in finding a way to
extract this energy on a scale large enough to be useful for such
applications, and assuming that the process is efficient and
environmentally friendly (that is, no harmful side effects such as
radioactivity), then the most likely form it would take would be as a
generator of heat. In this case a ZPE heater would simply constitute a
stand-alone replacement unit for whatever heating unit is presently in
use. If a process can be found to convert vacuum fluctuation energy into
an electrical form efficiently, then batteries with an exceptionally
long lifetime might result. However, I would also caution that it is too
early to tell whether laboratory ZPE phenomena can be developed into a
useful energy source. As with nuclear fusion, the steps between emerging
laboratory results and market-competitive energy source are many. But,
as the Chinese proverb says, a journey of 1000 miles begins with the
first steps, and these steps are now being taken in many laboratories
around the world."
Hal is missing an important idea. He simply does not know it. If he knew
it he would say it! That idea is the direct gravity effect of zero point
energy! He throws the Zero Point Baby out into the Briar Patch with his
completely wrong idea that "or that only mass-energy departures from the
homogeneous ZPE background curve space." That's a very bad error. Hal
will never snatch the Golden Ring on The Lense-Thirring Merry Go Round
with that idea. Good Lord, I have The Ring! ;-)
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/LeftBank/4080/siegfrd.mid
http://users.aol.com/donibess/ring.htm
"I'm really interested in the work you're doing at your institute in
Austin. Is there anywhere on the web we can read more about it?"
(Puthoff) "Results of the experimental efforts can
be accessed on a web page for EarthTech International (our corporate
umbrella for applications), at the web site http://www.eden.com/~little.
Our theoretical papers, which cover a host of topics (energy,
propulsion, gravity, inertia, cosmology) are scattered throughout the
web on sites dealing with the particular topic of interest. Because of
your question we have just posted a bibliography of these papers on our
web site which could then be accessed through university libraries."
"This is a naive layperson's question which, as a
genuinely naive layperson (at least when it comes to QM), I feel fully
qualified to pose. The question is simply where does the energy in these
quantum vacuum fluctuations come from? That is, if I installed one of
these zero point energy devices in my basement to power my electric
toaster in my kitchen, would I get free air conditioning in my basement
every time I made toast or would the energy come from somewhere unknown
(perhaps even somebody else's basement) or would it come from nowhere at
all (free lunch scenario)? I am of course bypassing the issues of
exactly how much of this energy is available and whether it is
harnessable in some practical way and simply assuming that at some point
I can buy these devices at my local hardware store and that they work as
advertised. (cosm...@poboxes.com)"
(Puthoff) "Naive layperson's questions are the
best! If access to the zero-point-energy (ZPE) reservoir is successful,
one needn't worry about either depletion of this resource or creating an
imbalance in the local environment. It is the electromagnetic equivalent
of scooping cupfuls of water out of the ocean, with replacement
occurring at the velocity of propagation of electromagnetic waves, the
velocity of light. As to the ultimate origin of the ZPE, two views are
discussed in the physics literature: one, that it is simply part and
parcel of the energetic legacy that emerged with the Big Bang, and
another that it is an energetic substratum the preceded even the Big
Bang, with our universe emerging as the result of a giant vacuum
fluctuation. In any case an argument can be made that it is sustained by
a cosmological feedback cycle in which charged particles radiate due to
their "quantum jiggle," and the particles "jiggle" due to being caught
up in the collective radiation of all the other particles, an
electromagnetic equivalent of placing a microphone near a speaker and
generating a squeal (see H. E. Puthoff, "On the Source of Vacuum
Electromagnetic Zero-Point Energy," Phys. Rev. A, vol. 40, p. 4857,1989;
Phys. Rev. A vol. 44, p. 3382,1991)."
Hal seems never to consider virtual electron-positron pairs even though
he uses the term "PV." Remember in Wheeler-Feynman-Hoyle-Narlikar light
cone action at a distance both directions in time there are no
independent EM degrees of freedom at all! The electron is more
fundamental than the photon!
"You say you think the next century could be the
era of zero-point energy. Do you think we're close to making the
breakthrough discovery that would make this scenario a reality?"
(Puthoff) To my knowledge there are at present
five techniques proposed to extract ZPE for use, the more promising of
which are under investigation in several laboratories, and some of which
have shown some small positive results."
That's news to me. What are these "five"? Publications? Extraordinary
claims require extraordinary proof.
(Puthoff) "As with solar power, hot fusion, and antimatter containment,
the road between emerging laboratory proof-of-principle and scaled-up,
economically-competitive energy resource is a long one. In our
laboratory we are sufficiently optimistic that we are devoting a large
part of our resources to this pursuit, with the expectation that within
a decade we will either be confident that it is only a matter of time
and engineering, or it will reveal itself to be only a laboratory
phenomenon without the possibility of constituting a major energy
resource. It falls into the category that we refer to jokingly as "high
risk, infinite payoff," and so think it is worth pursuing until its
potential is resolved one way or the other."
Could you please evaluate the "bubble theory"
that Puthoff is investigating on the show. Does it sound promising to you?
(Weinberg?) The "Bubble Theory" presented on the
Scientific American Frontiers program (that collapsing bubbles in
cavitating fluids might act as a Casimir process to convert vacuum
fluctuation energy into light) is not Puthoff's theory, but rather was
proposed by Nobel Laureate Julian Schwinger in a series of papers
published in the early '90's in the Proc. of the National Academy of
Sciences. As one of several theories put forth to explain the phenomenon
of sonoluminescence (sonically-driven light phenomena), this particular
theory, if true, might show an excess of heat energy in careful
calorimetric measurements, and these measurements are being carried out
at the Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin. So far, no excess has
been found, indicating that either Schwinger's proposed mechanism is not
correct, or that the percentage excess energy is vanishingly small in
the experiments carried out to date."
Strange that Puthoff wrote today
"I'm not trying to scale up the Casimir force effect, never have, never
even thought about it. Discussion of the Casimir effect in ZPE
discussions are purely pedagogical, not application oriented, and this
is clear to everyone else on your list who emails me privately. The
devices that have not scaled up are Ken's charge cluster devices, not
Casimir devices. My thoughts for ZPE extraction are based on totally
different other approaches. I understand Petersen's work and the
implications long before I ever even heard of Petersen. Where in my
work have I ever talked about scaling up Casimir effect for engineering
energy extraction devices, where?!"
So sonoluminescence is not what Hal is doing in Austin?
"I think the concept of a never-ending, free energy
sources is fascinating! But I don't really understand why we haven't
mastered it yet. The clock on the show represented how air pressure, or
barometric pressure, can cause a simple spring to wind. Couldn't this
technology be put to use in some other fashion, or if it's form didn't
change, isn't there any way we can use it?? Thankyou. Brittany"
(Puthoff) "Actually, when you think of it, there are a
number of sources of the natural type (like the barometric pressure)
that have been mastered and are used to produce energy. Niagara Falls is
a good example, where the falling water drives turbines to drive
generators to generate electricity. The water eventually is recycled by
evaporation into rain clouds, then rain and the upstream river, with the
energy recharge being accomplished by the sun in the evaporation part of
the cycle. Geothermal activity in such places as Iceland is also used to
produce energy. Solar power can be used effectively under certain
conditions. There are even prototype devices to harness the tides and
ocean currents, but these are not yet very effective. The use of fossil
and nuclear fuels to release stored energy is, of course, a major
example of the use of natural processes, in this case chemical and
nuclear reactions. In this light, attempts to harness zero point energy
are just a recent addition to a long list of harnessing energetic
processes we find in our natural environment."
In your excellent show "Beyond Science", there
was a clock that was powered by thermal expansion and contraction (I
think). Would you please send me a source for this clock. I am very
interested in examining its movement. Thank you very much for your time.
(Puthoff) The clock was powered by changes in
barometric pressure, rather than thermal effects. These clocks are still
available for purchase (though quite expensive!). Further information
can be obtained by accessing various web sites concerned with unusual
clocks, such as http://mall.cftnet.com/clockman/
"I've always been interested in space travel ever
since I was very young. I was wondering if zero point energy could
possibly power space ships. Could it? If it could then we could be
making trips to farther off places than the moon and maybe I could go to
Mars someday?"
(Puthoff) "Although it is still too early in the
research to know whether the zero-point energy can be tapped at levels
sufficient to power a space ship, without a doubt it would make an ideal
fuel since it is presumably available everywhere in space and therefore
need not be carried on board. A recent (August 1997) NASA workshop on
"Breakthrough Propulsion Physics" at NASA's Lewis Research Center in
Cleveland addressed this very possibility. I have myself explored this
topic in an article this year, "Space propulsion: Can empty space itself
provide a solution?" published in the Jan/Feb 1997 issue of "Ad Astra,"
the magazine of the National Space Society, headquartered in Washington,
DC."
"If you can tap into zero-point energy, say to turn
on some local light source, then does the energy regional depletion
affect local gravitational fields as they evolve in time? If local
energy gets restored through some kind of cosmic accounts balancing
principle, does the second law of thermodynamics become a casualty of
the new physics?"
(Puthoff)" Since zero-point energy fields are simply
a special case of electromagnetic field distribution, I would assume
that any regional depletion would be restored at the velocity of light,
the EM equivalent of scooping cupfuls of water out of the ocean.
Therefore I would not anticipate an evolving gravitational anomaly
associated with the process. As for the second law, I do not see it in
danger of becoming a casualty of the new physics (more precisely, the
new application, as the physics is standard). For example, Casimir
plates in the vacuum can be considered coupled to an open system, and
when driven together by vacuum forces, the vacuum has decayed to a lower
energy state and heat has been generated by the collision of the plates,
pretty standard stuff. For a more detailed discussion of the
thermodynamic aspects of zero-point energy extraction, see D.C. Cole and
H.E. Puthoff, "Extracting energy and heat from the vacuum," Phys. Rev.
E, vol. 48, p. 1562, 1993."
Rebutted by Ian Peterson who wrote:
"The complexity of the Casimir analysis has led to some untenable
assertions. It
has been claimed that the parallel-mirror configuration provides access
to an infinite
source of energy [18,***19]. However the maximum energy that can be
extracted by
allowing the separation of the mirrors to drop to zero cannot exceed the
surface energy
of their constituent metals, which is typically of the order of 1 J.m-2
[20]. There have
also been claims that energy can be extracted by cycling a machine [21].
...
16. J Schwinger, L L De Raad, K A Milton Ann. Phys. 115, 1 (1978).
17. S K Lamoreaux Phys. Rev. A 59, R3149-R3153 (1999).
18. R Forward Phys. Rev. B 30, 1700 (1984).
***19. D C Cole, H E Puthoff Phys. Rev. E 48, 1562-1565 (1993).
20. CRC Handbook of Chemistry, Physics, 80th Edn., (Ed D R Lide) (CRC
Press, Boca
Raton, FL 1999) pp4-120, 6-144.
21. G J Maclay Phys. Rev. A 61, 052110 (2000).
22. T H Boyer Phys. Rev. A 9, 2078-2084 (1974). "
Note that Peterson from University of Coventry UK also rebuts Maclay
another one of the NASA BPP "usual suspects"! ;-)
Richard
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
> With my comments on
> http://www.pbs.org/safarchive/3_ask/archive/qna/3282_hpsweinberg.html
>
> I wish there had been time on the show to see you
> and Steven Weinberg debate the existence of zero point energy. You, for
> example, states that there is enough energy out in space in the volume
> of a coffee cup to evaporate all the world's oceans. Weinberg estimates
> that the energy in space the size of the earth is no more than a gallon
> of gasoline. Can you explain how you arrived at your estimate and why
> you think Weinberg is incorrect?
>
> (Puthoff) "As pointed out by Prof. Weinberg, a
> straightforward calculation using quantum field theory does indeed yield
> an infinite energy density for the zero-point energy (ZPE) of empty
> space. What's wrong with this calculation is the assumption that
> electromagnetic waves of all frequencies exist and contribute to this
> energy density."
>
> Sarfatti: Correct if you assume a space-time continuum and complete
> randomness of the ZPE.
Sarfatti is the Donald Shead of ZPF. What will he use as a reservoir, I
wonder? The CMBR is about as cold as it gets.
If he could just launch a ship with a ballast at absolute zero, then he
could generate some heat in the cabin as the ZPE filters through a
generator on its way to the ballast, but he won't get too far,
conservation of momentum, damn, bet he forgot about that one. I suppose
he could eject mass after heating it with his generated energy, OTOH,
how much energy can be generated by raising his payload a few degrees
above absolute zero? Dumb fuck.
Richard Perry