Atoms Would Collapse Without Zero Point Energy, Period

Now, let's go to let's talk a little bit about zero point energy. Wasn't sure what order we were going to do these in, but I had a really good productive back and forth today and yesterday last night with Max Derek Shaunie. I think that's how you pronounce his name. If I butchered it, I apologize. He is a PhD physicist and I believe we watched him on it was either Jesse Michaels or the Y Files. I can't remember which one.

I think it was Jesse Michaels that we watched him on. And he was pretty on point with regards to explaining the zero point energy.

And finally now we have a physicist that pushed back that said hey and he did so in a very respectful way which makes sense because I think he understands zero point energy and he understands its possible significance but he hasn't made the leap to okay does the government have this can you actually engineer this technology so number one I want to thank Dr. Derek Shaunie for actually responding because believe it or not essentially no academic physicists have engaged with me ever on this content. Online people have but really no academics will even engage on this.

So the main point that I wanted to impress upon him to get you guys up to speed with the post that I'm going to explain here on how zero point energy works, why it's significant for you is that the answer to what the government technology is, the UFO technology, the alien technology, whatever you want, it's in the durs, the defense and intelligence reference documents. Fusion a neutronic specifically er equals EPR. the EPR experiments, you have warp drives, wormholes extracting quantum energy, you have negative mass propulsion, all the things that we need for alien technology are all there and they reference peer reviewed scientific papers.

Most of them have over like a hundred citations, but the engineering is not there. Correct. Rarely do you get scientific papers that tell you how to engineer something. That's not what scientific papers are meant to do. Scientific me papers are meant to tell you physics theory. You want to know how you engineer something?

Well, that's a completely different question. That's a completely different problem. Go look at the patents. Go look at Salvatore Py's patents. That's as close as you're going to get. He's going to tell you accelerated vibration and accelerated spin.

That's an engineering mechanism, right? So, this gets you up to speed on where we're at. The impass, and I'm speaking for myself. I'll probably invite the doctor on to come on the show. The impass is okay. You've shown these papers that show the theory, but I don't see anything in here that lets you engineer it.

Okay, now you guys caught up. Now, let's get to the interactive part. So I bring up the Aaronhoff bomb effect. Why? The Aaronhoff bomb effect shows that the A vector potential is something that's real, physical, something that can't be dismissed as a mathematical convenience. Shows that there's something underlying it.

Now what you choose to believe on terms of what's underlying is that's the rub right that's why we have different perspectives. So his response I'm going to read this out and I'll interpret it while I go. He says I don't think the Aaronhoff bomb effect is sufficient to imply the potentials as such are what's real or more real than the electric and magnetic fields. He says, "I know this is what people say, but I think it's a misconception." And I disagree. Number one, I disagree right there.

It is enough to imply that. Why? As I say in the reply down here, oh wait, I quoted it. Well, as I say in the quote, when the electric and magnetic fields are equal to zero zero, you can still get action from the a vector potential that shows you that it is something underlying. So, right off the bat, that's a significant difference. What's real in the sense of having observable physical effects in the AB effect is a closed looped integral.

This is a gauge invariant quant quantity uh and does not depend on any fixed absolute value of a um I'm going to skip this note part just for the length of time. I should also point out the AD effect is widely taught in undergraduate quantum mechanics courses and graduate EM courses and in textbook treatments of QED quantum electro electronamics. One starts by fixing a gauge in terms of the vector and scalar potentials and then applying a recipe of canonical quantization of those potentials in a fixed gauge. So modern physics makes widespread use of the electromagnetic potentials. So here's a little bit of a misinterpretation.

Now, if this was anybody else, they would probably gaslight with something like this 10 times harder. But what they're saying here is the the Aeronov Boom effect is not a secret. It's in there. We teach it. Yeah. But you don't teach the implication of it.

You don't teach the significance of it. This is like me saying, "Hey, uh, gravity uh I would say the the gra uh gravity on Earth is 9.8 m/s, but then saying that's it. That's all there is to it." And be like, "Okay, well, but does that change? Is there a significance to it? What does it matter?"

I don't know if that's a good analogy or not. But the point being is just because you teach the Aronhoff bomb effect, I'm not saying that the Aaronov bomb effect is a secret that nobody knows about. What I'm saying is that it shows that the potentials are actually something that's real and physical underneath it all, underneath the electric and magnetic fields. And that yes, under the right conditions, maybe there is something physical there. Maybe it's something beyond just something simple. Maybe it's not quite as simple as you would have thought.

Maybe it's related to resonance or frequency. just as an example hypothetically says I didn't follow the it's based on scalar physics aka nonlinear quantum mechanics though scalar physics can I refer to classic physics as well as quantum so the other thing about scalar physics is when you bring up scalar physics the academic will always say well scalar is just a magnitude just a number one two three four five without a vector without a action. So a scaler is just an increase. So they say this doesn't this doesn't mean anything. So you have to actually correct what you mean when you explain what is scalar physics.

If you go out there and you just say hey they're using scalar physics they're going to say okay well that doesn't mean anything. What does it mean? And especially what does it mean with respect to quantum electronamics? What does it mean respect to quantum mechanics? The very small that's out there. I'll get to this part in the reply because it kind of feeds all together.

And he also says he doesn't follow the statement that qed are atoms frozen in time. Now I'm it's probably a harsh analogy, but the classical perspective of the atom is this perfectly stable, isolated from everything else ball of energy that doesn't radiate any energy ever. It's perfectly efficient, 100% efficient. The only way this can make sense in my mind from a phys from a real reality perspective is if nothing's moving. Is if it's solid and frozen in time. That's the only way that can make sense in my perspective.

Now, you ask anybody, any academic, and this is where you're going to catch them. This is where physics breaks down. They can't explain what an atom is because they rely on quantum mechanics not acting like the macroscopic world, the large world that we see around us. They need quantum mechanics to suddenly start cheating and acting completely differently. And you know what I'm saying? Uh-uh.

I'm saying that the small world is going to act like the big world. We call that a unification theory. And this is where because I'm right, because we're right, this is where you can catch them off because they aren't going to have an answer for this. So his answer here, atoms representing certain wave functions interact with photons and when they do, they change in time. It's true that the electron ground state wave function in QED is stationary. But that's an idealization that ignores coupling to certain electromagnetic fields.

And in certain versions of QED like Nelson's, even when the electromagnetic wave function is in it ground state, the stochastically evolving electron field beable still continuously changes in time. So that's just a long way about saying, "Yeah, you're right. It doesn't make any sense. Just is what it is. That doesn't explain anything to me." And when people talk like this, it goes to show that they're book learned, but they're not really street smarts.

And what do I mean by that? When physics was being in its infancy stages, there was a large debate about whether or not it should be real, and I think that it should be. It should be based on real things that we really see. That doesn't rule out warp drives and wormholes. It just means when we try to explain things, we should try to explain it based on stuff that we can actually see, not try to make up rules that don't exist. That's what I think is the most important even with things like quantum entanglement like the double slit experiment.

So then he says the how's Hal Pluto's ground state of the hydrogen paper is certainly interesting and a nice result that may have lasting physical relevance on some level. Oh yeah, but it's based on an approximation of the hydrogen atom represented as two onedimensional charged harmonic oscillators oscillated in quadriure. The complete SED treatment of the hydrogen atom involves the classical electron coupled to the nucleus via cool potentials in three dimensions. Okay. So and interacting with SED version of zero point fluctuations. The problem has been analyzed in various ways.

And while some numerical evidence suggests that the classical uh hydrogen atom is stable and has mean electrical position uh that converges over time to the non relativistic quantum mechanical ground state probability distribution when left to independently evolve and certain highfrequency modes of ZPF are ignored. stability seems to be lost when the electron is excited too much above the ground state or when ZPF modes of wavelengths nuclear wavelengths. Okay, so by contrast the DBB and Nelsonian descriptions of the hydrogen atom give more complete accounts of the stability of the electrons and does not require electromagnetic ZPF.

Okay, so I don't really even know where to go with this. It sounds like he's presenting a counterargument saying that Nelson has come up with a more accurate explanation of the stability of the hydrogen atom that doesn't require 0 point fluctuations. Okay, cool. They're wrong. I don't really know what you want to say. That's not really like a proof.

That's something we can just debate on. And I'll go ahead and just take the position Nelson is wrong. The zero point energy is 100% real. And I guarantee you Nelson can't explain mass, inertia, gravity, dark matter, or dark energy, let alone many other things that zero point energy also explains. So it's not just a situation where I'm saying, "Hey man, 0 point energy is the answer to the ground state of the hydrogen. Therefore, free energy is real." No, that's not enough and it shouldn't be enough for anybody who considers themselves to be an appreciator of science and physics.

But do you know what is enough? When that same theory can also explain five existing gaps in physics. when it can explain five existing gaps in physics and make future predictions and make future predictions on over unity in fusion reactors. Specifically, we can predict that none equilibrium high beta fusion reactors are going to couple to zero point energy under the right frequencies.

So here's my response and again respectfully I think this I appreciate this back and forth and I think the reason why the Sabine Hosenfelders and Eric Weinstein's of the world are so scared to talk to me is because they know that's this isn't their response wouldn't even be this good and they know it wouldn't hold up and unfortunately Max's response or Dr. Derek Shaunie's response isn't going to hold up either. So, let me just re explain my response to this quite simply, and I'm just going to go with how I worded it because I think less words is better. Here you go.

The zero point energy can explain gravity, mass, inertia, dark matter, dark energy, and the threebody problem. The Aronov bomb effect demonstrates physical effects in regions where the E field and B field equals zero. Which means that the potentials are the onlogical primitives. I think I miswrote that. The potentials are the onlogical primitives. The potentials are therefore what's real.

Now, I'm not saying that this is a proof. It's not a forced conclusion. Because Dr. Derek Shaunie is saying, "Yes, these theories make sense, but this other theory can also work." Well, I'm not saying that you have to come to this exact conclusion. But I'm saying whatever conclusion you come to has to be consistent with the Aronov bomb effect and I'm telling you the Aaronov bomb effect and the a vector potential is the secret sauce to gravity manipulation. I am making that declarative statement.

So, you can prove me wrong if you want or you can just leave it uncontested. But I'm gonna keep saying it. And this is the reason why I'm saying it because this is a real experiment that physics cannot explain. They can try to explain it, but they can't explain it because it doesn't make any sense. If the space is an empty vacuum, how can no electromagnetic fields causing real physical impact if the fields are what's real? Simple question.

Scalar physics refers to treating the electromagnetic scalar and vector potentials as physical. This allows longitudinal modes, those longitudinal waves, Tesla's waves specifically, this is what we're talking about when we talk about longitudinal Tesla's waves that carry energy carry energy without electric or magnetic fields. Uhoh. If we can carry energy without electric and magnetic fields, we've just unlocked the ability to extract vacuum energy. Dr. Derek Shaunie said, "The scientific papers don't tell you how to engineer it." And I say, "I disagree. Here's the answer right here."

How did I figure it out? I read the scientific papers and I just inferred the answer after that. Wasn't that hard. deduced it. There it is. Classically, saying that the atoms don't radiate energy is absurd. And this is why I say you can be anybody off the street and you can understand physics better than a PhD.

If you just listen to my live streams, I'll give you the the ways. their their perspective of the atom being in this perfect idealized state, not interacting with anything, not absorbing energy. Somehow in a in a perfect in a perfect isolation, the atom never runs out of energy. How isn't it moving? Don't you believe in the laws of thermodynamics? What the laws of thermodynamics just don't apply to to atoms anymore? They have to do some Harry Potter rationale to claim why they think it's okay, why they think it's normal, that an atom wouldn't radiate energy.

Of course, atoms are radiating energy. They have to be. They're moving. I believe in the laws of thermodynamics. Nothing can be 100%. No system can be 100% efficient.

Can't be. Some even black holes are radiating energy away. Even black holes, chat, are radiating Hawking radiation. And you're trying to tell me that an atom is not radiating any energy. And you know why this is so important? It seems simple, but it's so important because if the atom's radiating energy away, it needs to also be getting energy from somewhere.

Otherwise, there's no way they can be stable. Salvatore Pais in our interviews even harped on this himself. He said, "Think about it. How fast would the atom collapse?" He says in like 10 uh 1 to the minus 10 it would like a fraction of a second the atom would be collapsing if it wasn't getting energy from somewhere. That's the key.