Re: Question about Vacuum Gravity

From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\) (net_at_nospam.com)
Date: 08/14/04 

Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 19:35:18 -0700

Dear vernonner3voltazim:

"vernonner3voltazim" <vnemitz@pinn.net> wrote in message
news:42336979.0408122130.5de3a523@posting.google.com...
> "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>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Okay. What do you think of Stephen Hawkings recent
> > > > > > > announcemtment regarding the nature of black holes,
> > > > > > > with respect to your "dementia"?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have heard just a little of it described. I'm not totally
> > > > > > daft after all.
> > > > >
> > > > > Uhhhh...I wasn't trying to hint that you might be, but some
> > > > > of the stuff I've read about Hawking's new findings included
> > > > > something about him being sure that black holes ane NOT
> > > > > connections to other universes....
> > > >
> > > > Not familiar with that. And each man lays his dead according
> > > > to his own fashion...
> > >
> > > I found it again:
>
http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=896346&tw=wn_wire_story
>
> > It doesn't say anything about connections to another Universe. It does
> > talk about "what goes in comes out mangled".
>
> It DID say BOTH:
> --------
> Hawking said his reworked theory ruled out his earlier belief
> that people could some day use black holes to travel to other
> universes.
>
> "I am sorry to disappoint science fiction fans," he said
> through his distinctive computerized voicebox. "But if you
> jump into a black hole, your mass energy will be returned
> to our universe but in a mangled form."
> --------

Notice that he is only requiring that the matter leave this Universe, and
return eventually to this Universe. He DOES NOT say it does not enter
another Universe.

> <snip photon spin-conservation>
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > 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...
> > >
> > > And the globular clusters are also located in a halo near the
> > > periphery of spiral galaxies. They also have stellar densities
> > > such that to think they DON't have BHs in their cores is silly.
> >
> > They don't have the internal motions consistent with there
> > being a BH present. The Lesser and Greater Magellanic clouds
> > are pretty visible...
>
> Ummm...aren't those clusters so dense that we can't really see
> very far into them? And, the Clouds aren't globular clusters!

True. But what I said about "internal motions consistent with there being
a BH present" still holds.

> > > Not to mention that blue-giant-star formation, the kind that
> > > can lead to black holes, has been going on all through the
> > > galaxy, and STILL is going on.
> >
> > But blue giants are still visible, and are therefore "counted".
>
> Ah, but they only last a few million years at most, before
> exploding and leaving a black hole behind. Which has been
> happening for 13-14 billion years....

Yet blue giants are still (or now) visible and counted.

> > > > > Do you recall Dr. Joseph Weber and his pioneering gravity
> > > > > wave detectors at the University of Maryland? Aluminum
> > > > > cylinders covered with strain gauges, they were. He got
> > > > > results (questioned today in terms of 'noise' filtering),
> > > > > that he said implied that 90%+ of the universe was black
> > > > > holes. Ok, that can't be right, Dark Matter is only 70%
> > > > > or so. :)
> > > >
> > > > Hadn't heard that one. As an order of magnitude, Dark Energy
> > > > and Dark Matter *are* expected to be 90%... he was "really
> > > > close".
> > >
> > > Search for "resonant mass gravity wave antenna" or some subset
> > > of that. Others have been built by others, and some are still
> > > in operation. Dr. Weber's initial findings were in the news
> > > back in the early 1970s, I think. Like I said, there has been
> > > some controversy regarding the actual sensitivity of that type
> > > of detector, and its ability to tell sound-vibes from gravity
> > > wave-vibes. Me, I know of a possible test, see:
> > > http://www.halfbakery.com/idea/Gravity_20Waves#1091644665
> > > But then, I'm suggesting a THIRD explanation for all those
> > > waves he thought he detected!
> > >
> > > BTW, I hadn't heard that Dark Energy is expected to be a
> > > source of gravity waves. Its essence is also supposed to
> > > be rather different from Dark Matter (ordinary mass that we
> > > just can't see, perhaps because of being sucked down BHs.
> >
> > I hadn't heard that either. I had only heard that Dark Energy
> > had to have a value sufficient to describe expansion
> > (and acceleration), with all the Dark Matter added to describe
> > spiral galaxy motion (etc.).
>
> Yeah, they are inventing Dark Energy to explain the acceleration.
> I don't know for sure that it is necessary (see my third T.O.E.
> essay, in its self-questioning addendum).

Actually only part of the DE is required for acceleration. Some of it is
required for expansion.

> They don't really have to invent Dark Matter to explain the
> galactic rotations, because we know of three types at least
> (neutrinos, stellar black holes, brown dwarfs) which taken
> together possibly could fit the bill. Only quantities and
> ratios need to be determined. And, my third T.O.E. essay
> (the addendum) offers a fourth possibility, if those three
> still don't add up.

Until then.

<snip, Milky Way visible across the Universe somewhere, NOT>

> <snip>
> > > > > Whatever
> > > > > statistically-sized hole allows an electron through, for your
> > > > > hypothesized QBPs, is also big enough to let many other kinds
> > > > > of particles through. And they are not observed in pair-
> > > > > production events. (And now you'll probably say something
> > > > > like, "In that future dead Universe, all the particles are
> > > > > so far apart from each other that when an electron does come
> > > > > though a hole to Now, it is the only one for a long ways
> > > > > around the entry point." :)
> > > >
> > > > Yes, for an infinite distance, in fact.
> > > >
> > > > > I doubt that! Otherwise even the FIRST particle would
> > > > > all-too-often be infinitely far from the entry point!
> > > > >
> > > > For quantum events, distance is a non-sequitur. One of the
> > > > reasons (purportedly, extrapolating) that Hawking reversed
> > > > himself on BHs.
> > > >
> > > > > Ah, but then those other particles, "infinitely distant" from
> > > > > the hole to NOW, can also get through that hole! So, where
> > > > > are they?
> > > >
> > > > Everywhere, everywhen. IF the Universe started as a Black Hole
> > > > in a container Universe, and IF causality connects past to
> > > > present to future (so that Abraham Lincoln doesn't evaporate),
> > > > and IF the container Universe ever cools below our temperature,
> > > > and IF Hawking radiation is correct, the mass/energy infall that
> > > > started out Universe can only come from the [container Universe:
> > > > singularity at the "center"] / [our Universe: the far distant,
> > > > infinitely diffuse future]. That means they pass very close to
> > > > any NOW, and every HERE, to get out.
> > >
> > > Sorry, but what I meant was, when a pair-production event
> > > in your scenario opens the way for some future particle to
> > > come to NOW, where the event is happening, then you have
> > > no means of preventing a horde of other particles from
> > > also passing through that opened way. (more below)
> >
> > I don't see why you think that should be so. Both models require
> > conservation of energy over long enough time intervals.
>
> But since you are involving REAL particles, energy IS conserved,
> with no Uncertain borrowing needed! Or, perhaps I'm misinterpreting
> what you meant, since a future particle that QBPs is "violating"
> the total energy of NOW. But if that is what you mean, then you
> have ANOTHER problem, because to make that future particle go
> HOME, you have to open ANOTHER gateway AND somehow separate from
> it any kinetic energy it NOW possesses, so that (A) it has the
> Zero needed to be able to go AnyWhen and (B), total energy of
> that future time remains conserved!

All matter/energy is leaving this Universe. Passing through some
intermediate "present" is simply a failed jump from our remote coooled
dispersed future, to the container Universe back beyond the Big Bang. Only
the fate of the "traded" or "exchanged" photon is in question. Going
"Home" is not an issue, because all mass/energy will go home.

> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > But we have laws that prevent all but the *right* collection
> > > > of particles from being expressed HERE and NOW. The question
> > > > is (for both models), WHY? But that isn't science...
> > >
> > > The two models are quite different in that regard. The Standard
> > > merely uses Energy Conservation, so that the gamma BECOMES, via
> > > absorption, a particle pair.
> >
> > Be a little careful here. Yes it does that, but it also creates
>
> WRONG! The Standard view is that the virtuals are popping
> everywhere and all the time. The gamma "creates" NONE of them.
> Instead, they are THERE, and the gamma is CONSTANTLY running
> into them, interacting with them, being absorbed by them, and
> being re-emitted by them. (This is why the speed of light is
> what it is, and not some higher value -- interactions waste
> time!) Only if an absorption happens near some intense
> charge can the two absorbing particles become separated so
> that the absorption can be called relatively "permanemt".

I've not heard this presented as part of the Standard model before.

> > identical (and mirror identical) particles, with exactly the
> > right properties (which the Universe could be depended on to
> > enforce), and all the particles propagate to the instantaneous
> > and coincident event where a photon and a charge are on one
> > side of, and three charges are on the other side of... in
> > the same space.
>
> No fantastic coincidence. Sheer numbers add up. Read this:
>
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=13&articleID=00094511-E068-10FA-89FB83414B7F0000

Understood. Agree. Sheer numbers do add up.

> > > Yours creates a means for every
> > > future particle to become part of the NOW event, simply because
> > > you have made it so easy for ANY of them to participate.
> >
> > Hardly easy. Necessary. Possible. But only for "exact"
> > matches that the Universe will allow.
>
> No, you REALLY have made it too easy! Remember the supersized
> Casimir plates? ALL those future particles HAVE to come through
> for you! With NO gammas present!

Let's see what you said about Casimir, because I've heard this force
descibed differently...

> > > Also,
> > > you may have a problem with Energy, because you specify zero-
> > > energy particles arriving from the future, but the produced pair
> > > of particles often have >0 energy (especially if gamma holds
> > > more than needed for the pair to be produced).
> >
> > Consider that "zero" energy now is a whole lot hotter than
> > "zero" energy near the time of the Big Bang. The red shift
> > is an indication of relative energy levels between two
> > "times" as well...
>
> That's GOT to be backward.

Not. Look at the CMBR. We see it as 3K, and it has a spectrum of 3000K
hydrogen. So "infinitessimally above zero" then would appear a lot colder
now, while 3K now would look a lot like 3000K back then.

> The BB was LOTS hotter than now,
> so near-Zero then should be hotter than near-Zero now. And,
> regarding red shifts, we've already gone over two-interpretations
> -at-the-same-time, and they conflict. The only two that work
> are a combination of gravity gradient and velocity. For the
> CMBR, the only question is what portion of the shift is due to
> gravity gradient, and what portion is due to relative velocity.

Look at what we are receiving now. If you don't believe in tired light,
then then was a lot colder than now. In some sloppy sense...

> > > After that, you
> > > still have to get rid of your gamma! --and it has WAY too much
> > > energy for those just-QBP-from-future particles.
> >
> > No issues since an infinitely diffuse future will never
> > allow the gamma near anything else anyway.
>
> No, I'm talking about the gamma being absorbed by the QBP-from
> -future-particles, so that they can have >0 energy NOW, when
> they didn't in the future.

Not required.

> The gamma has too much energy; the
> rest has to disappear or CoE is violated. You are implying
> that the remainder of the gamma disappears to the future -- but
> you are perhaps neglecting the quantum nature of the gamma.
> ALL of it has to be absorbed! Part can be re-emitted, but your
> scenarion is becoming ridiculously complicated.
> 1. Gamma encounters charged particle
> 2. Gateway opens to allow two particles to QB from future,
> selection method unspecified.

Note: QB particles are always present at any *now*, since they must pass by
all *nows* on their way into the container Universe...

> 3. The QB particles absorb the gamma, and retain JUST enough
> energy so that their mass plus that energy equals the gamma.
> The rest is emitted to the future, due to CoE.

I think we need to drop this line, since you are COMPLETELY
misunderstanding. And as I have said it is my dementia, and not fact. An
equivalent to describing a aether for the propagation of light. And a
valid point is "why"?

> > > > > > > <snip>
> > > > Accepted. Perhaps my attempt at identifying the frame with
> > > > "[container Universe: ...]" will make my responses clearer.
> > > > Snip away.
> > > >
> > > > > Keep in mind that I am proposing that the second Universe
> > > > > be almost wholly antimatter, so a pair of QBPs involve
> > > > > migration from both distant futures.
> > >
> > > 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.
>
> See http://www.slac.stanford.edu/slac/media-info/20040802/

Excellent! Thanks.

> <snip>
> > > > > When the REAL particle does happen to be present, in just
> > > > > the right place, we can construct this scenario:
>
> > > > > 1) A virtual pair pops into temporary existence.
> > > > > 2) Pair absorbs gamma, becoming REAL. They are totally
> > > > > "entangled" still, so **IF** they were to recombine,
> > > > > THAT is why a single gamma will continue on its way.
> > > > > 3) With a nearby already-existing REAL particle present,
> > > > > one of the just REALized pair is attracted to it, and
> > > > > one is repelled. This messes up their entanglement,
> > > > > increases their separation from each other, and leads
> > > > > to individual lives.
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > 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 MeV (from the electron's frame) interacts with
> > a free electron. LEP is one accelerator where such
> > research and interactions are documented.
>
> OK, but how often does that happen, compared to electron/
> positron pair-formation when a 1.1Mev gamma goes near a
> proton?

Not documented as having ever occurred.

> What you previously wrote implied that such
> interactions are common. I'm pretty sure, though, that
> the proton-gamma interaction is a LOT more common than
> the electron-gamma interaction, with respect to pair-
> production. AND, your previous writing does not allow
> for this proton-gamma->electron/positron, in which the
> produced pair does NOT include a clone of the REAL
> charged particle.

As I've said, I don't believe protons and 1.1 GeV gammas (plus a few GeV)
ever result in anything except Compton scattering. And I don't recall in
my more lucid moments ever having said otherwise.

> > > And, when proton/anti-proton
> > > pairs appear, again a nuclear voltage gradient (MANY protons
> > > working together!) can be present. You can't call that a
> > > clone-event unless a whole nucleus/anti-nucleus appears.
> >
> > Since photons only interact with charges, and the only charge
> > that is a permanent resident of the nucleus is the proton,
> > yes I can.
>
> Ah, but distance matters! The gamma can pass a good distance
> away from a nucleus, and encounter the same-intensity field
> as if it passed close to a single proton. You cannot then
> say that a single proton was responsible for a pair-formation
> event that occurs in that large region around the nucleus,
> distant from a single proton.

Quantum events occur at a single "point", however diffuse that point might
be. In the case of pair creation, the gamma photon, electron, and
electron-positron pair are *coincident*. At least as far as the Unvierse
is concerned.

> > > > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > > 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).
>
> I think the observer WILL know that the meteor fell in.
> A burst of gravity waves is supposed to be generated,
> for example. And, remember that the event horizon is
> mathematically thin and Uncertainly located.

"Thin"? Hell it is a sphere of Uncertainty the size of the Black Hole.

> IT can
> "vibrate" in a way that bites off pieces of the meteor,
> as the meteor is seen to ALMOST reach the EH.

I disagree. Because the "bite" will be illusion, and some time later the
missing piece will be revealed.

> > > 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?
> >
> > Yep.
> >
> > > > > Sure, from the ROCK's perspective, it
> > > > > reaches a state of no-time-passing when it arrives at
> > > > > the event horizon, but that is irrelevant to the OTHER
> > > > > perspective, where the rock is approaching the BH at
> > > > > nearly light-speed.
> > > >
> > > > A moving object does not have the same time-rate as
> > > > something in-orbit, as it crosses the orbit. And light
> > > > is not fast enough to orbit at the event horizon.
> > >
> > > That is irrelevant, because it is a frame-jump from
> > > the external observer's view.
> >
> > Time dilation exists between an infalling body, and an
> > orbiting body. Even as the two bodies cross at some
> > "altitude". This is NOT a frame jump.
>
> OK, but since we KNOW that the meteor is GOING IN, there
> must be a way for the observer to say that it happened.
> Gravity waves and event-horizon nibbling are my suggestions.

I don't see why you feel this much information is necessary. The object is
extremely red shifted, such that light emitted as it crosses the event
horizon will be at an infinte wavelength. A "short distance" above that it
will be simply a "phenomenally long" wavelength. And so on.

> > > > > <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.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, the EM-relation is simply because EM involves relatively
> > > > > volumous particles (long wavelength photons). Close enough
> > > > > together, and the metal sheets do not allow the spontaneous
> > > > > appearance of large virtual photons between them. The force
> > > > > we measure is there because those photons can still appear
> > > > > OUTSIDE the plates. Thus there is an imbalance between the
> > > > > virtual particles appearing between and outside the plates,
> > > > > which we see as pressure. And the more sizes of photons we
> > > > > can prevent appearing (closer the gap between the plates),
> > > > > the greater the force. The plates themselves are not
> > > > > attracting each other; they just have to be metal because
> > > > > plastic doesn't reflect low-energy photons, and so would
> > > > > NOT prevent their virtual-appearance between the plates.
> > > > > (Hmmm, polyacetylene is a metallically reflective plastic...
> > > > > and I'd equally expect two sheets of neutronium to be
> > > > > positionable such that virtual electron/positron-pairs could
> > > > > not appear between THEM. And two science-fictional "flat
> > > > > force shields" could be positioned closely enough to prevent
> > > > > just about every virtual thing from appearing between them.
> > > > > Thus it is bad to relate the Casimir test to only EM stuff.)
> > > >
> > > > > > Except that you have stated that only conductors experience
> > > > > > the force. Therefore, it is EM related.
> > > > >
> > > > > So far we can only MEASURE the force by using conductors,
> > > > > because only conductors interact appropriately with volume-
> > > > > occupying virtual particles like photons. From 'way below:
> > > > > > Experimental result has the photon's "size" inclusive of
> > > > > > zero. Just FYI.
> > > > > Yes, a photon's energy is at a particular point, but the
> > > > > LOCATION of that point jumps widely (shape of wave).
> > > > > Restricting its freedom to jump means blocking the energy.
> > > >
> > > > Insulators don't express Casimir forces. "Discontinuities"
> > > > in insulators do.
> > >
> > > I think you missed what I meant. Think about all the different
> > > kinds of subatomic particles -- which ones have any SIZE on
> > > the macroscopic scale (per wave/particle duality)?
> >
> > The proton and the neutron have significant physical size
> > associated with them.
>
> Sorry, I'm talking about the size associated with the wave-
> particle duality. Protons and neutrons, and even electrons,
> are practically invisible next to what photons and neutrinos
> can manage, size-wise.

Wavelength is not a meaningful description of "size". It may be the only
finite measure we can associate with a particle, but size implies building
a box large enough to contain it, and I'm not convinced the Universe is
quite big enough.

> > > That scale
> > > is relevant to the Casimir effect, right? Well, only neutrinos
> > > and photons have macroscopic size.
> >
> > Did you mean neutrons? I don't think neutrino sizes have
> > been established experimentally...
>
> I mean neutrinos. Their MASS is sufficiently established (dinky),
> meaning that they can possess any velocity from zero to nearly
> light-speed, and when at any ordinary speed, their momemtums are
> going to be associated with quite large wave-sizes.

Wavelength is not size. Size is the space between the plates, and if
wavelength is an indication, then *less* pressure should be exerted by long
wavelength pressure when the plates are close.

> > > The Casimir effect depends
> > > on blocking the appearance of virtual particles, by not giving
> > > them the room they need to exist.
> >
> > I've heard it described as the resonant EM waves that it
> > disallows. Remember the EM can induce a magnetic moment...
> > and closer is a lower energy state.
>
> Well, as long as its only been described in terms of EM effects,
> of course you are going to think it an EM-only phenomenon. But
> I maintain that wave-size is most important, and that the two
> closly-spaced plates simply don't provide enough space for
> large-sized virtual-photons to pop into existence between them.
>
> I'd like to see the same be true for virtual-neutrinos. But as
> I said before, nothing exists that can make them feel squished,
> so that they would thus prefer to virtually pop elsewhere.

Somehow I don't think this has anything to do with Standard definitions...

> <snip>
>
> > I don't think you mean neutrinos. I don't think anything
> > except photons and conductive plates are involved in
> > Casimir. And I can't think of an experiment to tell the
> > difference.
>
> Oh. No, I was describing a WISH. Currently I know full
> well that only photons are BOTH big enough and interactive
> enough for them to participate in a Casimir experiment.
> I did say "IF we had a science-fictional force shield",
> ONLY because that might put the pressure on neutrinos.
> So as to show that the test works for them, virtually, also.

Oh.

> <snip>
> > > > >
> > > > > Heh. Well, consider the efforts to create "unidirectional"
> > > > > propulsion devices, which assume that gravity waves will be
> > > > > carrying off the "missing" momentum. For example:
> > > > > http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/pdf/Cramer-JPC.pdf
> > > > > If any such device ever works (and I think the evidence is
> > > > > slowly accumulating), then we be in the same situation as
> > > > > the original hypothesizer of the neutrino (missing momentum,
> > > > > spin, and energy that had to be explained).
> > > >
> > > > Nothing "accumulated" yet. The work has returned null results,
> > > > when no "vibratory coupling" was present. Models constructed
> > > > don't get an "impulse engine" thrust when isolated from structure.
> > >
> > > Yes, but I do think they had an error margin that was mostly-hiding
> > > possible positive results. They DO want to refine their tests,
> > > so the indication is that they think there might be something
> > > to find!
> >
> > The payoff would be great, the potential cost is a few man
> > years of wasted efort. The fellow's (Woodward?) work has
> > been poo-pooed here, because I brought him up some time ago.
> > They asked me if I'd bought anything yet.
>
> Heh.
>
> > > > > > As to the rest, Casimir doesn't make or break what I have
> > > > > > been saying. I'm talking about the sources of said QBP.
> > > > >
> > > > > The difference between the Casimir test and pair-production
> > > > > is that the latter gives you a gamma to use as a crowbar or
> > > > > something, to help those QBPs come from the future. There
> > > > > are insufficient REAL gammas present to explain Casimir's test.
> > > >
> > > > But *plenty* of more pedestrian EM radiation to provide the
> > > > effect. Doesn't have to be gamma...
> > >
> > > > > Well, I recall us going over that before, with you saying
> > > > > you cannot shield the prevalent real EM photons. I think
> > > > > I will accept that claim ONLY if you can satisfactorily
> > > > > show why this does not mean vast numbers of particles
> > > > > popping in from the future, during a simple pair-production
> > > > > event.
> > > >
> > > > 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!)
> >
> > The electron and positron are electrically opposite, and
> > should (and do) attract, yet they still manage to have
> > separate histories.
>
> Like I said before, this is because the nearby REAL particle
> interacts with them, so that they are no longer entangled.

Oh.

> > And BHs *can*
> > have a net charge. It is *still* conservation of energy.
>
> I disagree. "Charge" is represented by virtual photons,
> right? Well, if ordinary real photons cannot get out of
> a black hole, then how can virtual photons?

Because they are sitll "painted" on the horizon (and not nibbled at).

> So, the
> Universe acquires charge, but the black holes don't. :)

They are modelled as if they do. They have an entire class of solutions,
in fact. And virtual photons don't propagate, but simply "exchange"
between quantum particles that don't know what distance is. Inside a BH
and outside a BH, no difference. Space and Time are properties of the
*system*, and not any particular member of the population.

> > > > Only the *duration* of such an intrusion is limited,
> > > > but pair creation always includes one of the same kind
> > > > of the REAL particle involved.
> > >
> > > But that's NOT always true. Sure, in the case of a BH
> > > event horizon, maybe a pair of micro-BHs can virtually
> > > appear, after which one gets swallowed by the big BH
> > > --but the other is NOT going to really escape, since
> > > micro-BHs explode via Hawking radiation! And NO
> > > gamma needed in this description!
> >
> > Yes, to create the initial hole-pair, and as a result of
> > its/their evaporation...
>
> NOT! If you require a gamma to be present, then the big BH
> cannot lose mass/energy per Hawking radiation. The pair
> of micro-BHs MUST BORROW Energy from Uncertainty, so that
> when one is swallowed, the only way the borrowing can be
> repaid is via the mass/energy of the big BH.

Or the Universe at large... which is/may-be the same thing.

> > > > > > If you perfomed a Casimir 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.
> >
> > I wouldn't go so much for expanding, as for contracting, to
> > provide the illusion of "everything else expanding". And I
> > would expect the laws of physics to adjust such that all
> > would appear normal "locally".
>
> Well, every Law you allow to become change-able is a Law
> that must have an explanation for the change. Complexifies
> your hypothesis, it does....

Perhaps.

> > > > > If the plates are so big that in your hypothesis all particles
> > > > > in the Universe have to cooperate to do the test, but you can
> > > > > imagine still-bigger plates, then you should have a problem
> > > > > if the experiment could be performed. The Standard view never
> > > > > runs out of virtual particles for ever-greater force between
> > > > > such things as ridiculously humongous (and growing!) Casimir
> > > > > plates, while your hypothesis has a limit.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't see the limit. But experiment would at least be
> > > > > > possible, however remotely.
> > > > >
> > > > > The limit is the presumed finite-ness of quantity of REAL
> > > > > particles in the Universe (or even a couple of them). If
> > > > > the Casimir plates were large enough, ALL, of them would
> > > > > have to QBP to explain the force on the plates -- but we
> > > > > can imagine even-larger plates, so your hypothesis runs
> > > > > out of particles, while the Standard view doesn't.
> > > >
> > > > I don't think it would run out of particles, since you would
> > > > be depriving the Universe of alternate modes of "expression"
> > > > by consuming mass into your Casimir plates. But time will
> > > > tell. It could be one way to knife it in the heart. Gotta
> > > > be a cheaper way though...
> > >
> > > I've made so many stabs at it that I'm surprised it still
> > > has life left in it. :)
> >
> > Then lets snip or end. No point in feeling frustrated.
> >
> > > > <snip>
> > > > > Also,
> > > > > since the existence of the virtual pair is due to borrowing,
> > > > > when the gamma is absorbed, THAT decides what final kinetic
> > > > > energies the two just-appeared particles will have. They do
> > > > > not have to have pre-borrowed the exact amount the gamma carries.
> > > > >
> > > > Actually, all the more reason for infinities, IMHO. Some match
> > > > is "destined" to occur, if an infinite supply is available.
> > > >
> > > More likely that the match will be missed, like needle
> > > in haystack.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You used this exact analogy above, and it was OK for you!
> > > > > > More likely with an infinite supply of thousands of types
> > > > > > of particles, and exact match can be found.
> > > > >
> > > > > I see what you are saying, but you are ignoring the role
> > > > > of Uncertainty (no such thing as "exact"), and I didn't.
> > > > > Uncertainty provides a RANGE (of any type of energy) such
> > > > > that any continuum of energy (which by definition is an
> > > > > infinity) can be divided finitely.
> > > >
> > > > Uncertainty is a *measurement* problem. Not a constraint
> > > > on the Universe, but by the Universe on your *tools*.
> > >
> > > Then where does the Casimir effect come from, when inside
> > > a Faraday cage?
> >
> > Why do microwaves self-intefere with geometries outside
> > the microwave oven? Because they are not entirely
> > constrained to the inside of the oven. Where does
> > Casimir effect come from when it is immersed in a sea
> > of not-entirely-localizeable EM radation? Gee, I
> > wonder... maybe a Faraday cage only keeps you from
> > absorbing a photon emitted outside the cage?
>
> Sorry, but you cannot have it two different ways at
> the same time. See, if you allow external REAL
> photons to get past the Faraday Cage, then you must
> ALSO let them exist in-between the two Casimir
> plates!

I do. Just not many of them are in resonance. Remember that the field
between two conductive plates has certain expected behaviors (and
permissible values) according to Maxwell...

> Which means that all forces upon the plates
> become balanced, and the Effect vanishes. BUT, since
> the Effect is REAL, it follows that REAL photons
> ARE excluded from the faraday cage! Leaving only
> virtual photons to explain the Effect!

I don't see that it follows, but I have already been informed that all
photons are virtual anyway...

> > > Two metal plates, nonmagnetic and uncharged,
> > > "attracting" each other more than can be explained by van der
> > > Waals forces, and no REAL external photons pushing on them?
> >
> > Yes "real" (whatever that means) external photons
> > pushing on them. I am assuming this occurs in
> > *this* Universe, right?
>
> Ordinary real photons was what I was talking about. In this
> Universe, yes also. The Casimir Effect is a force between
> two special plates (nonmagnetic, etc), and that force is
> greater than van der Waal forces alone can explain.

Just wanted to be clear. Seems like we've got enough parallel
communications going here to choke AT&T.

> > > Yes, I know we have a discussion going above that started
> > > from something much like this earlier. I cannot accept
> > > your claim of REAL photons getting through a Faraday cage,
> > > because REAL photons can be detected, and they NEVER are,
> > > inside the cage. That is, after all, the cage's purpose!
> >
> > It only prevents you absorbing an externally created
> > photon, not interacting with one (or more) outside
> > the the cage, dude. We can agree to disagree.
>
> Again, you cannot have opposing concepts at the same time.
> If you want REAL photons inside the Faraday cage pushing
> on the Casimir plates, then we should be able to detect
> those REAL photons inside the cage by more-direct means.

How much of a REAL photon do you think it takes? Not enough to detect
inside the cage, except via Casimir.

> But this does not EVER happen inside a Faraday cage
> (unless poorly constructed or breached). So, the phtons
> pressing on the Casimir plates CANNOT be ordinary!

And what photons are anything but virtual? I wonder sometimes if
propagating photons are anything except "oscillations" in all the charges
in the Universe.

> > > > > That's why an atom
> > > > > that emits/absorbs "one particular frequency" actually
> > > > > also deals with photons on either side of that value. You
> > > > > want exact, you have to go up against infinity the hard way.
> > > >
> > > > Or have an atom at absolute zero, so that only *true*
> > > > baseline behavior is expressed, and off-value photons
> > > > are rejected. If you can find it once you cool it. ;>)
> > >
> > > You can't get rid of the "zero-point" energy, even in Theory,
> > > because it is present thanks to Uncertainty.
> >
> > Note where you say "energy", as in photons. Note that it
> > is not "zero point mass", "zero point charge", nor
> > "zero point spin".
>
> "zero point" Kinetic energy, however, IS allowed! And,
> that is actually the standard type of "zero-point energy".

It is not kinetic, until REALized. It is potential.

I don't see the automatic connection you do between Casimir and QBP.

> > > > > Unfortunately for you, if you accept Uncertainty, then
> > > > > you are on the slippery slope to accepting virtual
> > > > > particles and no need for QBPs from the future....
> > > >
> > > > Hardly. I accept uncertainty, and uncertainty is what
> > > > provides that future supercooled particles with *exactly*
> > > > known energy (zero) must be exactly everywhere.
> > >
> > > Erroneous, as regarding zero-point energy.
> >
> > Erroneous, as noted above.
>
> Yes, you are more erroneous than I, at this time. :)

Then we can be done, since I don't wish to partake of a shouting match.

David A. Smith