Re: Question about Vacuum Gravity

From: vernonner3voltazim (vnemitz_at_pinn.net)
Date: 07/10/04 

Date: 9 Jul 2004 23:48:42 -0700

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote:
> "vernonner3voltazim" <vnemitz@pinn.net> wrote:
>
> For any new reader of this Thread,
> who sees this first, the Question is: If the vacuum self-
> energy, expressed as virtual particles, is a non-zero amount,
> on the average, then since EVERY FORM of Energy exhibits
> Gravitation, THEN, is the gravitation of those virtual
> particles repulsive or attractive? For years I thought it
> was attractive, but recently encountered an article in which
> it was stated to be repulsive. If true, I want to know why!
> Thanks!
>
> (below, discussion diverged widely from still-unanswered Question)
> >
<snip>
> > Thanks! I certainly did not know that about free electrons.
> > I see that they DO interact less easily as the photon energy
> > goes up, but rather more slowly than seemed reasonable,
> > based on atomic-electron interactions that I knew about.
> > Also, that pink line is about mostly elastic collisions, and
> > not pair-production. Can you find a pair-production graph?
> > Still...please note that in those vast reaches of space
> > between galaxies and clusters, the matter that is present
> > is mostly ATOMS, and not free ions and electrons. COLD,
> > those regions are...and so we can see decent numbers of
> > gammas from far away. (recall this section started about
> > seeing gammas from matter/anti-matter annihilations).
>
> I understand what you are saying about matter. You have
> already agreed that a gamma photon and real matter are
> required to evoke a QBP pair into existence. The thrust
> of my argument was that since gamma can travel great
> distances, spectrally, then it must also encounter real
> matter to create pairs. The gamma alone was not enough
> to evoke a QBP pair from the vacuum.

Heh. Our disagreement here concerns "evoking" as opposed
to "evoking to REALity". That is, yes, we agree that the
gamma and the matter work together to "convert" the gamma
into a particle pair. We still disagree about QBPs in
general, because you seem to want them to happen ONLY
when you find the results convenient, and I accept the
Standard view that they happen everywhere and all the
time (and disappear just as frequently). (I put "convert"
in quotes because we have some disagreement about the
meaning of that, too.)
 
> As to the graph, I'd use Google Advanced
> All the words: gamma free electron energy cross section graph
> The exact phrase: pair production
> Excluding: matter
> and I get 138 hits. One of which talks about TeV gamma
> photons from interacting light with an electron stream.
> I don't think there is a problem with interacting a
> photon of any energy with a free electron.

OK, Thanks!
 
<snip>
> > > > Now your hypothesis really has a problem! Far enough in the
> > > > future, and this Universe has evaporated! No source for FTL
> > > > QPBs! --Yes, I know you are thinking of that long long time
> > > > BEFORE evaporation occurs, as plenty of opportunity for
> > > > sourcing QBPs. But the problem really is, for a gamma that
> > > > converts to a particle pair, those two particles are usually
> > > > NOT HARDLY "cold"! Your explanation, please?
> > > >
> > > Keep in mind that in order for the distant future particles
> > > to exit the horizon, they had to... cross all the nows
> > > between the internal time = infinity and the internal
> > > time=zero! And you didn't see that coming did you!
> > >
> > > > So, why did the Universe bother to exist through all that
> > > > "now", when those T=0 particles could just QBP out of
> > > > the Universe's event horizon AT T=0? Instant maximum
> > > > entropy, see?
> > >
> > > Expansion to the final state does seem to follow rules.
> > > The radius of the event horizon is of finite length, so
> > > time must play itself out.
> >
> > > > No, I think you are missing the point. According to Hawking,
> > > > the smaller a BH, the more easily it emits. Well, if the
> > > > Universe is a BH that started as a point, then it should
> > > > have emitted big-time! Now I admit that "smaller" is not
> > > > just a size issue, but also a mass issue. Perhaps the
> > > > Universe had all of its mass at T=0 of the Big Bang. But
> > > > you have to be consistent; if you regard a still-spewing
> > > > naked singularity as existing now at the site of the BB,
> > > > then at T=0, the universe could NOT have had all of its
> > > > present mass. So, with a tiny univers both size-wise and
> > > > mass-wise at T=0, and IF that universe is embedded inside
> > > > some other, then at T=0 there should have been instant
> > > > evaporation, and not a BB.
> > >
> > > You are mixing coordinates. Outside (the container Universe)
> > > the Black Hole that contains the Unvierse is a size related
> > > to the mass the Hole contains. Inside (our Universe) I'm
> > > not sure that we had to start from a point, but r_U_initial
> > > would also likely be a function of the mass/energy of the
> > > Universe too.
> >
> > No, I think I was describing a real issue. *IF* there is a
> > container universe that sees our universe as just a black
> > hole, well, according to the observed history of our universe,
> > this was a hole that grew from a pinpoint. So, if the outer
> > universe had a pinpoint-sized hole, it should have evaporated
> > instead of grown.
> >
> > Now I have encountered before, the notion of black holes
> > being doorways to other universes, but the way I interpreted
> > what I read was that when you fall into a hole HERE, you
> > first simply fall and get squished by tidal effects, as you
> > approach the singularity inside the hole. That space inside
> > a hole HERE is NOT the space of that connected universe; you
> > don't reach the other universe until you hit the singularity.
> > This is not healthy; you become a batch of exploding particles,
> > in that other universe, at the site of that other universe's
> > ongoing Big Bang (a white-hole/naked-singularity, that is).
> > I admit that this doesn't well-explain fact that the hole
> > HERE grows as more mass falls into it, if all that mass is
> > ending up in another universe. So perhaps there is no such
> > connection...or it is more subtle than I understand now.
>
> Just remember that what I am presenting is only *my* favorite
> interpretation of one set of solutions. Knowing what happens
> to matter at the horizon might reveal something intereting in
> light of aether too. Too bad we cannot get information back
> from there.

Yeah, the slowdown of the Rate of Time, as you approach the
event horizon, makes it tough. The ironic thing is, a super-
massive black hole can be so big that *IF* you could stand on
its event horizon, you mighe experience only 1G acceleration.
At first thought, "let's just stick hand down through the
horizon, and pull it back out". Foiled by Time's Slowdown!

(the preceding is approaching snippable status)

> > <snip>
> > > Which is not statistically possible, given the rules of
> > > this Universe. Which is what my "argument" is based on.
> > > Infinitely diffuse matter, that is infintely cold, has
> > > no position.
> >
> > Well, let's examine that notion, then. You have heard
> > about "zero-point motion" haven't you? The Uncertainty
> > Principle ensures that no particle can ever really be
> > infinitely cold.
>
> Can never be *measured* to be infinitely cold. And in a
> BE condensate this is handled by having the matter be
> non-localizeable in space.

Yet so long as you realize that we are talking about tiny
quantities of energy that CANNOT BE DIRECTLY MEASURED EVEN
IN THEORY, that is why they can pop into temporary existence,
thumb their noses at us, and vanish. The Casimir experiment
is probably our best current evidence that they ARE Burping.

> > It is more of the same effect that
> > lets particle-pairs appear from nowhere; real particles
> > can borrow energy, too, for long enough, and often enough,
> > to thus have enough temperature to avoid the kind of
> > "spreading out" that might otherwise let them permeate
> > the Universe (which ironically is another phenomenon of
> > Uncertainty :).
>
> But getting them to permeate across time might be a bit of
> a stretch...

That's YOUR problem. The Standard view doesn't need it.
On the other hand, there is a thing called "retarded waves",
and their opposite, "advanced waves" which you might look
up. QM DOES allow waves to arrive from the future, even
if we haven't officially/formally detected any yet. (As
far as "informally" is concerned, well there is precognition!)
 
<snip other precog stuff>

> > > > > > > The 99.9999999% are somewhere else. I'm talking about
> > > > > > > the equivalent of "curling", there you deflect the path
> > > > > > > of a large mass simply by sweeping he ice in front of it.
> > > > > > > A photomultipler equivalently stops the mass "center".
> > > > > > > But events along the path, any distance out from it, have
> > > > > > > some decreasing effect on the perceived path.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sorry, but I think you didn't see the point I was trying
> > > > > > to make. If real photons don't Burp their way into a
> > > > > > room where we are prepared to detect them, then we can be
> > > > > > sure that they don't Burp their way out of a microwave
> > > > > > oven, or into a Faraday cage, either.
> > > > >
> > > > > I wasn't talking about Burping, but propagating.
> > > >
> > > > You seem to be saying, then, that everything is
> > > > transparent? Because that is the only way I see
> > > > for a propagating photon to get through the walls
> > > > into a dark room. (Just saw in newspaper today
> > > > article about concrete blocks with embedded optical
> > > > fibers -- lets light through; less artificial
> > > > light needed!)
> > >
> > > What I am saying is that distance is an illusion. Position
> > > is an illusion. Path is more of an illusion.
> >
> > Well, sort-of. A tunnelling electron makes the barrier
> > it crosses to be the equivalent of an illusion. BUT
> > the electron cannot cross that barrier without help
> > (the externally applied voltage distorts the waveshape
> > of the electron until its location-probability includes
> > a place on the far side of the barrier). There is NO
> > such assistance available for photons -- and certainly
> > they cannot become infinitely cold!
>
> At the "end" of time, no particle will have any other
> particle in its future. That means that no photon will
> ever again come in contact with any other particle. So
> essentially, c is 0. I think that ends all forms of
> heat transfer. I'd say that photons aren't really cold,
> but contain no energy then.

Sorry, but I don't see anyone buying that. Just because
a photon might get into a line of travel where nothing
ever is encountered-to-interaction, that does not mean
that we cannot pick a reference frame tied to some other
particle, and examine that photon from that point of view.
It will never change from its original value, if it never
interacts with anything.

> <snip>
> > > > > > Because the lack
> > > > > > of detection in a dark room is identical to a lack of
> > > > > > effect on a Casimir experiment in a Faraday cage. That
> > > > > > is, we could surround the Casimir test with photo-detectors
> > > > > > in a darkened Faraday cage, and the experiment will work
> > > > > > normally, and NO real photons will be detected there,
> > > > > > when you say they should be there to explain the Casimir
> > > > > > results.
> > > > >
> > > > > And I can create self-interference with "slits" placed
> > > > > outside the Faraday cage, in photons emitted-propagated-
> > > > > absorbed inside the cage. Detection of the deflection
> > > > > might be problematic...
> > > >
> > > > Please desribe that more clearly. Even in interference
> > > > experiments, photons do NOT travel down blocked pathways.
> > >
> > > I will refer you to a post by Bilge, to me, 2002Oct18:
> > > <QUOTE>
> > > Allow me to spoil that hope. Look up "interaction free
> > > measurement". In effect, the idea is to place an object
> > > in one path of a mach-zender interferometer and detect
> > > the presence of the object without ever having a photon
> > > photon traverse the path blocked by the object.
> > > <END QUOTE>
> > >
> > > Not quite the same, but of similar ilk.
> >
> > I found this:
> > http://newton.uor.edu/facultyfolder/deweerd/research/IFM-AJP.pdf
> > and I think what I wrote above remains true. Photons do not
> > travel through blocked pathways.
> >
> > Let me try to explain what's going on in that experiment, in
> > terms of one photon at a time. The idea is, you have to think
> > in terms of "total momentum of the photon", and not "presence
> > or absence of the photon". FIRST, without the blockage, at the
> > first beam splitter we have a situation where the real photon
> > can interact with virtual photons, and those virtual photons
> > can carry half of the total momentum of the real photon, down
> > both paths of the interferometer. The halves recombine at
> > the second splitter (Momentum is conserved); the degree to
> > which the path lengths are identical is the degree to which
> > we do NOT see a self-interference pattern of those momentum-
> > wavicles for the real photon (and also is the degree to which
> > the second detector sees nothing). (More on this is in my
> > second T.O.E. essay, mostly about self-interfering electrons.)
> >
> > SECOND, when an object blocks a pathway, well, no virtual
> > photon can go that way, to carry momentum to the second
> > beam splitter, so therefore all the momentum can only go
> > EITHER one way or the other, at the first beam splitter.
> > If lucky enough to not be absorbed by the object, then
> > the momentum CAN divide at the second beam splitter....
> >
> > (I wonder what Bilge would say about that, heh heh heh
> > -- "Bilge!" maybe, though I doubt his explanation is any
> > better.) ANYWAY, I hope you see what I meant, about real
> > photons not getting into the darkened Faraday cage, to cause
> > the results of the Casimir experiment. If blocked so that
> > real photons can't pass, then virtual photons won't, either.
>
> OK. I'll work on a better experimental setup, with some
> better research, when we do your essays.

Thanks. I've edited my prior post a bit, to fix typos
and other unclarities.

> Getting shorter...
Yup, the preceding block is reaching snippable stage, too.

Relevant Pages
Loading