Re: Question about Vacuum Gravity

From: luke (funk420_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 08/13/04 

Date: 13 Aug 2004 09:31:40 -0700

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<amBSc.11075$xk.6511@fed1read01>...
> Dear vernonner3voltazim:
>
> "vernonner3voltazim" <vnemitz@pinn.net> wrote in message
> news:42336979.0408082312.397882b3@posting.google.com...
> > "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com>
> > wrote:ote:
> > "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!
> >

Greetings. Sorry to jump in in the middle here.. lots of great
material, thanks! A few questions you raise:

You seem pretty confident that 'EVERY FORM of Energy exhibits
Graviation'..
As far as I understand there is no experimental evidence that anything
except neutrons and protons actually form a gravitational source. Is
there something I am missing?

> > > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > And I'm starting to wonder about just how many black holes
> > > > there might be. If I recall, just about all of the earliest
> > > > stars that formed, throughout the universe, were humongous
> > > > types which could only have exploded and left black holes
> > > > behind. Enough of them, and BHs might BE the Dark Matter....
> > >
> > > The distribution is wrong. DM is also located in a halo near
> > > the periphery of spiral galaxies, remember. Andromeda should
> > > be one big mass of gamma producers...

Only if there is accretion material available, right? Are BHs as DM
the 'MACHO' interpretation? Isn't this constrained with microlensing
surveys?

> > <snip>
> > >
> > > > And
> > > > we have no reason to think the Universe so small that that
> > > > ancient light has circumnavigated it. So, a galaxy that
> > > > looks to be moving from us at 80% of lightspeed is NOT the
> > > > Milky Way.

That sounds like you are interpreting redshift as a local velocity,
and not as a cosmic expansion it is usually made out to be..

> > >
> > > Supposed I offered that the Virgo supercluster was the only
> > > matter in the Universe, and all other bodies that we saw was
> > > from multiple times around the infinite-but-bounded Universe.
> > > What would you offer to disprove this? I don't mean
> > > images-reflected-off-a-mirrored-surface, but more like I look
> > > forward and see the back of my own head type of thing... I
> > > am not proposing that the Universe it this "small". But what
> > > evidence is there, that it is any larger?
> >
> > OK, the large-scale maps that have been getting made, showing
> > the "foamy" void-filled Universe. In a Virgo-viewed-endlessly
> > scenario, there should be distinct similarities between every
> > supercluster in that map, and there are not enough. Also, the
> > map has some features ("The Great Wall") that are far larger
> > than the Virgo supercluster.
>
> Yet can you say with assurance that NONE of the images we see are of an
> infant Milky Way? I don't have any emotional investment either way. It is
> a point of cogitation only.
>

To say something like that with assurance sounds a bit egotistical. A
better approach might be to put a limit on the time required, i.e. the
size of the universe. In other words, if the universe were big
enough, by the time the light went "all the way around", it could be
that the galaxy is no more. Then you'd never be able to observe any
effect.

> > > > > > > > [snip wormhole stuff]
>
> >
> >
> > Interjection: Recent News of largest parity violation found yet,
> > between matter and antimatter. This Universe is looking more and
> > more dominated by our ordinary kind of matter.
>
> Link? Yes this would tend to describe "local" laws as tending towards
> production of matter, rather than antimatter.
>

Yes. Partity violation experiments are certainly very important, and
nucleogenisis arguments are convincing. However, empirically and
experimentally I don't think anyone has cashed in on the Alfven
challenge yet, to prove that the closest star is not made of
antimatter.

> > > > > > [...]
> > >
> > > And it all becomes "terribly convenient" that one of the
> > > REALized pair happens to be a "clone" of the original REAL
> > > particle, when surely all sorts of QBP pairs play a part
> > > in the virtual segmentation of a propagating gamma photon.
> >

Is that any more terribly convenient than the fact that a particle
that has moved 1 meter is a clone of itself 1 meter ago?

> > I think you have a mistake there. It is the voltage gradient
> > of a NUCLEUS that usually lets a gamma become an electron/
> > positron pair. No clone there!
>
> Pair creation can and does occur when a photon with more than 1.1 GeV (from
> the electron's frame) interacts with a free electron. LEP is one
> accelerator where such research and interactions are documented.
>

There is still a voltage gradient around a free electron. I see you
have addressed this below..
 
> >
> > The voltage gradient around an electron is too wimpy, mostly
> > because the electron jumps around so FAR, relative to the
> > size of a proton (or a pair).
>
> They've thrown enough energy at it. Proton/antiproton productions don't
> occur with electrons. Or at least have not been documented to have
> occurred.
>

How does this fit in with the Feynman idea of antiparticles as
koinoparicles (normal matter) travelling backwards in time?

> > > > <snip>
> > > > > > > I am working on two different terms:
> > > > > > > - black hole, the characteristic of an event horizon,
> > > > > > > where one set of mathematical tools stops functioning.
> > > > > > > - singularity, the geometric point at the "center" of
> > > > > > > the BH where all tools fail.
> > > > > > > We look at what we know of matter and say that it cannot
> > > > > > > help but collapse to infinite density at the center of
> > > > > > > the BH. We also say that once a chunk of matter crosses
> > > > > > > the event horizon, its contribution to the BH is
> > > > > > > *instantly* at the center of the BH.
> > > > > >

It seems to me that the space-time conditions (fields) inside the
event horizon have never been experimentally sampled. Thus, the
problem is we have no idea what kind of forms "matter" or "energy"
would take there.

> > > >
> > > > This is a paradox I've discussed before in this Forum.
> > > > Nobody could really answer my Question regarding it:
> > > > If the infalling mass experiences time-stop AT the event
> > > > horizon, then how does it get INSIDE the black hole?
> > >

Nobody experiences time-stop. Only others looking at your clock have
that problem.

> > >
> > > > The spectator watching the BH from a safe distance, who
> > > > sees a meteoroid falling toward the hole, will see the
> > > > rock go faster and faster. It will NOT stop at the
> > > > event horizon!
> > >
> > > Not true. The [container Universe: observer] will see the
> > > object slow, and get dimmer, but never cross the event
> > > horizon. What happens to that "image" as the hole
> > > evaporates may be what is bugging Hawking.
> >
> > A little more precision is in order. What the outside
> > observer sees are the photons coming from the falling
> > meteor.
>
> As I said, [container Universe: observer], using all insturments at his
> disposal, never detects the infalling meteoroid to cross the event horizon.
> What you say is true, and is equally true of any body, doing anything,
> anywhere. Our interactions are ALL by photons, and detected ALL by photons
> (sometimes only virtual).
>
> > The meteor itself doesn't slow down AT ALL,
> > under the enormous gravity pull of even a mere "stellar"
> > BH. So the meteor promptly gets swallowed, while the
> > photons revealing that event are having trouble getting
> > from there to the observer. OK?
>

Yes. Of course, at this point it is no longer a meteor, as it has
been ripped apart by tidal forces, and mostly converted to gamma
rays.. What happens to a proton or electron (or photon!) on their way
towards the event horizon is the question.

>
> As is any theory or hokey hypothesis (that me!) involving BH.
>

Nice to see some honesty and humility from a theoretical physicist!
Especially in the ng :)

> > > > <snip>
> > > > > > > > The Casimir test is an INDIRECT observation. We detect a
> > > > > > > > force between two closely-spaced electrically neutral
> > > > > > > > nonmagnetic metal plates, and that force includes an
> > > > > > > > association with potential energy, so that REAL energy is
> > > > > > > > Concerved. And yes, we can make the plates arbitrarily
> > > > > > > > larger, and detect a proportionately larger force, so it is
> > > > > > > > easy to assmue that virtual particles are always, anywhere,
> > > > > > > > available to surround the plates. Anyway, this behavior,
> > > > > > > > involving potential energy, is basically the same as any
> > > > > > > > of the four standard Forces (with appropriate interacting
> > > > > > > > substances), but in the particular case of the Casimir
> > > > > > > > test, NONE of the four standard Forces are involved.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I would amend that statement. The Casimir force is expected
> > > > > > > to be EM related, yet it also decays with 1/r^4. None of the
> > > > > > > classical forces meet the requirements alone, as they are
> > > > > > > presented now.
> > > > > > [...]
> > > > >
> > > > > Yet, it is EM related, with a 1/r^4 result. And it is still
> > > > > the result of observation, that assures us it happens. We
> > > > > are circling on this topic. I think it can be snipped.
> > > >
> > > > After a little more hashing, above, OK.
> > >

Sounds like you agree that the Casimir effect is electromagnetic.
That's how I understand it.

[more casimir snip and vacuum energy propulsion snip]

> > >
> > > Same if you can tell me why we don't "observe" a BH and an
> > > antiBH for a single pair creation event.
> >
> > Oh, that's easy! They are electrically neutral! Nothing
> > exists that can cause them to stay separated! (Not to
> > mention the EXTREMELY extreme amount of energy that the
> > gamma would have to have, to pay for the two BHs!)
>

Why do the BHs have to have large energy? Are you discounting
microholes? How about, a photon pair produces two micro-holes, which
Hawking radiate a clone of the original photon?

> > > > > > > > Mwoooo-hwoooo-hoooo-ha-ha-hah! HERE is a thought-experiment
> > > > > > > > for you! The total quantity of REAL particles in the
> > > > > > > > universe seems to be finite, right?

What's your evidence of that?

> > > > > > > > [snip gedanken casimir plates larger than the universe]
> > > > >
> > > > > If you perfomed the test 1 Gy ago, would you have noted a
> > > > > difference in expressed force at a given distance?
> > > > > Recalling expansion, and cooling of the CMBR...
> > > >
> > > > I would tend to say NO. The prevalance of virtual particles
> > > > in the vacuum would have had to change over time for some
> > > > different result to happen, like you suggest, but I know of
> > > > no reason why the prevalence would have changed.
> > >
> > > And I would tend to say YES, since I feel the plates were
> > > larger, and contained more space between them, given our
> > > current distance standard. I think this is what is held
> > > constant with "expansion"... because I cannot convince
> > > myself that the number of photons is neither constant, nor
> > > decreasing.
> >
> > Well, I think you cannot talk about everything expanding
> > along with the Universe. Atoms would have to be bigger
> > now than then, and the inverse-square law would mean that
> > in the past they were harder to ionize, and participated
> > with much more difficulty in chemical reactions, and so on.
> > The notion fails, because we wouldn't be here discussing
> > it, if it was true.

How so? Our origin in the last Gyr or so would be unaffected. Also,
atoms are held together with e&m forces, the same forces that govern
photon propogation, and photons are indeed redshifted.. why not the
atoms themselves?

Thanks again - luke

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Weirdos square of negative mass.
    ... less than a free electron + a proton. ... Every example you've vomited up so far has a hydrogen atom ... electron gains energy, then emitted a photon in order to move; ... kg c of photons hit a PERFECT mirror (one that reflects all ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Classical wave theory and tired light
    ... that the exchange of energy between matter and the radiation field is ... electrons on a target and that you observe that an electron is freed ... Because localized least action travel of all elementary EM events is ... "Travels as discrete quanta" is typical of "photons as billiard ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: physical principle responsible for EMwave propagation
    ... relationships of EM waves. ... but as quantized quantities (photons) ... tranquil pond and watching that energy radiate as waves.It seems clear ... energy as is captive in an electron mass, ...
    (sci.physics.electromag)
  • Re: physical principle responsible for EMwave propagation
    ... relationships of EM waves. ... but as quantized quantities (photons) ... tranquil pond and watching that energy radiate as waves.It seems clear ... energy as is captive in an electron mass, ...
    (sci.physics.electromag)
  • /zpf = (mc^2/e^2)^2(1 + (2/alpha)^2) for electron stability
    ... transverse EM waves have positive pressure? ... polarizations do have positive energy density hence negative pressure ... This gives the famous factor of 2 in Einstein's "gravity lens" ... physically the real on-mass-shell BARE electron sans its ...
    (sci.math)
Loading