Re: Question about Vacuum Gravity
From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\) (net_at_nospam.com)
Date: 08/25/04
- Next message: suzysewnshow: "Re: Absolute Time"
- Previous message: robert j. kolker: "Re: Reflections on Aether"
- In reply to: vernonner3voltazim: "Re: Question about Vacuum Gravity"
- Next in thread: vernonner3voltazim: "Re: Question about Vacuum Gravity"
- Reply: vernonner3voltazim: "Re: Question about Vacuum Gravity"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 20:21:14 -0700
Dear vernonner3voltazim:
"vernonner3voltazim" <vnemitz@pinn.net> wrote in message
news:42336979.0408192135.7fbddce0@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>
>
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.
> > >
> > > That sounds like either a nitpicky quibble, or grasping at straws.
> > > why should his conclusion that particles only escape a BH back
> > > into this Universe imply that they can go somewhere else before
> > > then? The mass of the BH would have to lessen, if they did....
> >
> > I don't follow your logic. Because the interior of the BH
> > is free to have its own coordinate system, prevents the
> > outside from expressing gestalt mass in what way?
>
> Hmmmm. Well, in terms of BH-as-container-of-a-universe, I
> suppose you have a point. I suppose my issue is that
> because we don't know what actually goes on inside one,
> it is unwise to make radical speculations like that. Occam's
> Razor, after all, suggests no need for any complexities.
> Just SQUUUUUUUSSSSHHHH, with occasional escapees.
> Somehow I get the impression that just because it was once
> fashionable to envision BHs as doorways to OTHERWHERE, the
> way the luminiferous aether was once fashionable, you think
> it ought to be True. But even if it was true, the nearest
> doorway is likely quite a few light-years away. What good
> is that?
The good is that where there are coordinates in our space that are
critical, in the container Universe they are null. Folding space could be
doable. As to time travel, well, I don't see a way to time travel without
"exchanging" place with new matter entering the Universe, altering the
contents of the Big Bang, and the Universe you'd travel in.
> > ...
> > > > > 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...
>
> Interjection: It has occurred to me that if the average star in
> a globular cluster has always been ordinary, then there might
> indeed be very few BHs in there. Now, if there was a cluster
> of blue giants...!
I don't see that that follows. "Normal" stars are found orbiting the BH at
the center of the Milky Way... in quite "drastic" orbits.
> > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > OK, I see that you really mean that the observed visible mass of
> > > a globular cluster explains what we see. However, I think you
> > > are missing a minor point, which is that if the Sun was instantly
> > > replaced by a black hole of the same mass, the planetary orbits
> > > wouldn't waver an iota. Globular clusters could have a lot of
> > > stellar-mass black holes in their interiors, where we ASSUME the
> > > observed number-of-stars-per-cubic-parsec is consistent with
> > > what we can see of their exterior regions. Because all we can
> > > see are the exterior regions.
> >
> > I don't think they can, because the stellar motion of globular
> > clusters is not consistent with something that has a lot of
> > centralized mass... and they are certainly accretion-rich,
> > with few gamma/X-ray sources.
>
> Now wait a minute. Consider a globular cluster as a simile to
> Planet Earth. The gravity at the "surface" depends on what's
> inside, sure. And the deeper you dig down into the Earth, or
> go into a cluster, the more "layers" are above you (with zero
> gravitational effect, the standard rule for the interior of
> a spherical shell). So, except for density variations that
> in the Earth actually increase the gravity effect for some
> hundreds of miles down (inverse/square law beating out lessened
> total affecting mass), you generally see weaker and weaker
> attraction to the center of the sphere, based on how much
> stuff is left, between you and the center. Now, if the
> Earth's core was replaced by a BH of the same MASS, not size,
> then except for wanting to fall into a big empty space where
> the core was, the rest of the Earth would be unaffected in
> terms of gravitational magnitudes.
Assuming you could rig some sort of artificial support for the first mile
or so of crust, sure. Beyond that thickness, no physical material would
suffice...
> Similarly, inside a
> globluar cluster could be many star-corpses that are now
> black holes. Their existence would NOT increase the overall
> gravitation on the outer layers of the cluster, because they
> have about the same masses as the stars they used to be.
> But because they are buried deep inside the cluster, we
> cannot see photons escaping from their accretion disks,
> any more than we can directly see the Earth's core.
Given that observations of BH are based on gamma and x-ray emissions,
coming through distances with nearly the same mass as in half a globular
cluster, I don't see how you can be so sure.
> Yet
> we might detect gravity waves from them (this part of
> discussion started, as I recall, from Joseph Weber's data
> hinting 90% of the universe to be black holes).
OK.
> > > Anyway, the whole reason I mentioned globular clusters in the
> > > first place is that they are distributed in a halo around the
> > > galactic core. Just because THEY do not seem to have unexplained
> > > extra mass does not mean that there cannot be a lot of black
> > > holes ALSO in a halo around the galactic core.
> >
> > For a globular, I agree. With the caveat that they are
> > accretion material rich, and few gamma sources.
>
> Are they? Accretion material rich, that is? I'd read that
> globular clusters are among the oldest pieces of the Milky
> Way. Their birthing clouds are long since already-accreted.
> (Or blown away)
Globular clusters are infants, and in that they are baby pictures, so the
*pictures* are ancient. they are accretion-material rich.
> <snip lots of corpses of blue giants>
>
> > > > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > Well, what if the initial Explosion (BB) had never slowed at all?
> >
> > It was not an explosion, rather the ignition of "det-cord".
> > The Big Bang was not an explosion, with large amounts of
> > kinetic velocity that was braked by gravitation.
>
> I thought I had read that until the acceleration began, some
> small number of Gyrs ago, the universe's expansion HAD been
> slowing?
Not aware of this. I have only heard of a disjoint in the Hubble parameter
"before" and "after".
> > > Then, only recent acceleration need be explained, and likely not
> > > quite so much as is believed presently. Reasons for such notions
> > > are in that third T.O.E. essay.
> >
> > OK.
> >
> > > <snip>
> > > > > 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 our 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.
>
> Interjection: The preceding sounds like "propagation",
> which you have denounced elsewhere....
*Not* denounced. I'm really happy with two different kinds of photons. I
detest "virtual photon begets virtual photon" ad infinitum. But this is
(apparently) where QM needs it to be.
> > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > Then what do you need the gamma FOR, in pair-production?
> >
> > Conservation of energy. A key that fits a specific lock.
>
> This does not make as much sense as you are claiming. You have
> already chosen to conserve energy by QBP of REAL particles from
> elsewhere/when. Thus, the gamma that "becomes" a particle pair
> cannot have its energy really-become the particle pair; the
> gamma must GO somewhere else, even as the QBPpair arrives.
> And that is a major complexifier that the Standard view does
> not need.
Notice that the electron gives up a certain amount of Certainty, when it
yields up the photon characteristic of entering an orbital? So a photon
gives up *all* Certainty when the pair is REALized. Energy of photon is
zero, so position is...
> > > > > > > <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 just-appeared pair of absorbing particles
> > > > > interact and become separated and lose their entanglement, so
> > > > > that the absorption can be called relatively "permanemt".
> > > >
> > > > I've not heard this presented as part of the Standard model before.
> > >
> > > Well, perhaps I am just jumping to one of the logical conclusions
> > > of the statement from QM that virtual particles are popping and
> > > vanishing everywhere and all the time. Have you got any reason
> > > to disagree with that consequence, once the popping is accepted?
> >
> > I cannot agree until I can figure out:
> > - how an entangled pair can mutually share absorption of a photon;
> > - how they can mututally release said photon; and
> > - said photon is "spectrally" unaffected by the exchange.
>
> That's pretty easy. If, for example, a proton/antiproton pair
> pops into temporary existence, it is not difficult to assume
> they spend part of that existence as "protonium", circling each
> other. A REAL gamma happening by, being absorbed, just means
> that they make a wider circle. Energy-conservation AND Momentum
> conservation ensures the same gamma as before is emitted; the
> orbits collapse, and the pair can now vanish. No, I don't
> know the official name for the proton-equivalent of
> "positronium" -- itself an object likely to absorb/re-emit
> lower-frequency photons. Absorbing a 1.1Mev gamma means quite
> large circle for positronium, which would be easily disturbed
> by the electric field of any nearby REAL charged particle....
Note that momentum can be conserved, but if the absorption-reemission takes
any time, the "orbit" will release the photon with a random offset. Enough
times, and you'll no longer have a spectral image.
> I should mention that quantum rules probably restrict the
> lesser photonic energies that such orbiting particle pairs
> can absorb. Still, sheer variety of types of charged virtual
> particles (quarks, W-bosons, pions, muons, kaons, all sorts
> of baryons, etc.) makes for quite a spectrum of absorbable
> photons by this mutual-orbit mechanism. For other photons,
> a different mechanism is needed, but not so hard to find.
> A just-popped pair presumably is two particles speeding away
> from each other, but they still electrically attract, and so
> will inevitably slow down and "fall" back toward each other
> for their mutual vanishing act. At any point in this smooth
> dance a REAL photon might inject a kind of bounce. Why not?
Too cludgy. But then you are toying with "particles from the future". I
just don't see how you can keep from scattering an image.
> > It may be just me, but this seems even more contrived
> > than my future-sourced QBP. ;>)
>
> Not really, because we know that positronium can exist,
> and to assume the equivalent for proton/anti-proton pairs
> -- and all those others -- is a no-brainer.
Yes really. The absorption must occur in no-time, because arrival of gamma
from an event is really *sharp*.
> > > <snip sheer numbers>
> > > > > 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...
> > >
> > > ??? I've said that the Casimir effect comes about because all
> > > particles require a certain amount of Space in which to exist
> > > (which includes waving all over the place, for some of them),
> > > and all types of particles are virtually present at all times
> > > and places. Except for special circumstances. For example,
> > > remember that microwaves don't pass through the holes in the
> > > screen on a microwave oven door, because they are simply too
> > > big to fit. VIRTUAL microwave photons are ALSO going to be
> > > too big to fit. Next, for an isolated Casimir plate, there is
> > > room on both sides for equal numbers of all types of virtual
> > > particles to appear. Between two plates, though, the bigger
> > > virtual photons are blocked, just like being too big for those
> > > microwave-oven-door holes. So there will be an imbalance
> > > in the quantities of virtual particles impinging upon the two
> > > sides of each of the pair of plates. The result we know, in
> > > the perceived Force to reduce the gap between the plates all
> > > the way to Zero. This is all simple and consistent and a
> > > logical result of the combined notions of wavicle-size and
> > > virtuals-everywhere.
> >
> > It doesn't follow. Casimir forces are not discrete.
> > Particle sizes are discrete. Energies are not discrete.
> > Therefore, I submit that Casimir requires photons.
> > A little Velikovskian of me, perhaps...
>
> (my turn to gag)
;>)
> I thought we had sheer numbers washing
> out any indications of discreteness? ALL across the surface
> of the Casimir plates, virtuals are popping. Enormous
> numbers of them! A single plate has equal numbers of
> temporary interactions on both sides; two nearby plates
> have equal numbers on their OUTsides, but lesser numbers
> in-between. The non-discretness of the force between
> the plates is directly associated with the non-discreteness
> of wavicle-sizes that are prevented from popping in-between
> the plates. Also, the wider the total range of prevented
> sizes (the smaller the gap between the plates, that is),
> the greater the imbalance between poppings-and-interactions
> on the OUTside of the pair of plates, compared to the
> inside. It really is nice and smooth.
As one would expect from a "wave" behaviour. So it is not a discrete
phenomenon. It is not particles (some of finite size) popping into
existence, because most of them *don't* care about conductors.
> As for requiring photons, I think our ONLY disagreement
> here is that I think the Casimir effect SHOULD work for
> more particles than merely photons, IF we had a suitable
> way to interact-to-exclusion with them. Metal is fine
> for photons; Faraday cages are metal and exclude photons
> just fine, after all. Science-fictional force shields
> should be fine for neutrinos (not to mention electrons,
> protons, etc., when the plates are REALLY close together).
The Casimir effect only works for conductors. Therefore only EM is
involved. If the QBP don't care about "resonance" or "waveguide
characteristics" then they would similarly effect sources of strong and
weak interaction forces (aka all nuclear matter). They don't.
> > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > I am not objecting to APPEARANCES, which is what wee see of the
> > > CMBR. I am objecting to the interpretation that confuses the
> > > appearance of "then" with the actual conditions of "then". For
> > > example, if we observe a Really Distant Quasar, such that its
> > > most energetic gammas come to us looking like infrared, can you
> > > say that the quasar is a cool object? NO. All you can say is
> > > that it LOOKS like a cool object, thanks to the red-shift.
> >
> > And GR has it actually be cool, compared to now. The photon
> > didn't lose energy, our clocks are faster. The past didn't
> > cool, we "heated up". This is another interpretation of
> > what a gravitational potential *does*.
>
> OK, I think that whoever wrote what you read and now are
> presenting in your own words, that person was doing an
> unspecified frame-shift, and confused you thereby.
> Relativity describes environments in which the "actors"
> see themselves as being perfectly normal. SHIFTING any
> actor from one frame to another costs energy, but when
> done, the actor STILL sees normality. A CMBR photon
> sees itself as being unchanged from some past high-
> energy emission event, even if we can describe
> it as having been affected while shifting from its
> original frame to our current frame.
You cannot ascribe a frame to light. Other than that I agree with the
method... keep in mind you'd have to be emitting light in a space with
similar curvature... right?
> I see below that
> you are excluding a climb out of a gravity gradient: OK.
> The relative-velocity thing I mentioned is still there.
> (more below)
It is all the same beast however. How we on the outside, wish to describe
what goes on in the well, is semantics. Important, to be sure. But
semantics nevertheless.
> > > 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...
> > >
> > > In no sense, and involving no "tiredness" of light. Light that
> > > left the vicinity of the BB climed out of one humongous gravity
> > > well, heading for the "edge of the universe". Geomentry made it
> > > about-face (after a fashion that may resemble circumnavigation),
> > > and then play catch-up to matter from the BB which is moving at
> > > nearly light-speed. HUGE red-shift, total. "Then" was quite
> > > hot, but all we see of that is an illusion.
> >
> > Not illusion. A change in time base. There was no gradient
> > to climb out of. The only thing affected by time/distance...
> > is *not* the photon.
>
> I can accept the lack of gradient, since whole universe was
> expanding. But you yourself proposed that some of those far
> galaxies we see might be youthfull versions of the Milky Way;
> I propose that the CMBR photons are exactly that sort of thing
> -- photons that passed matter, cicumnavigated the universe,
> and now are playing catch-up. If the universe is accelerating
> its expansion, that just makes the catch-up all the more
> effective, at red-shifting the CMBR!
I, like you, believe the CMBR is the image of some single thing. Like an
object caught in just past the focal point of a lens.
I like the word gradient, but it has a specific mathematical meaning. In
order to get *here* *now*, light from *there* *then* was shaped by the
multitude of *nows* in the Universe's of decreasing density. If you want
to picture that as a "climbing out", or a change in "time base", I suppose
that is a matter of personal taste. It is a fact that timed events from
curved space are slowed when compared to timed events in less curved space.
So I think the "climbing out" image has problems, since the space between
successive events should not be similarly stretched with the wavelength of
light.
> > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > ??? Please remember that I am discussing a pair of REALized
> > > particles that go shooting away from each other at considerable
> > > speed. Their kinetic energy is over-and-above their energy of
> > > "formation". In the Standard view, the gamma provides enough
> > > energy for both the existence of the particles and their speeds.
> > > Meanwhile, in your scenario, those future particles are required
> > > to have near-zero energy, so that they can exist in the NOW.
> > > But arriving here does not give them speed that they never had;
> > > the observed kinetic energies of particle-pairs has to come from
> > > somewhere. If not the gamma, then where??? And **IF** the
> > > gamma supplies the kinetic energy to the particle-pair, well:
> > > > > 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
> > > > > scenario is becoming ridiculously complicated.
> > > > > 1. Gamma encounters charged particle
> > > > > 2. Gateway opens to allow two particles to QB from future,
> > > > > selection method unspecified.
> >
> > You've blended the above point with the below, so the
> > transition will be a little jerky...
> >
> > You have seen one Standard description of what expansion
> > means, lets see if you can answer your own "conundrum"...
> > there is no constraint on what we can perceive an
> > arrived-from-future particle's energy to be. If it is
> > Certain that it is here now, it energy&momentum must be...
>
> I think you are indulging in "circular" logic, and that is
> not allowed.
I don't see the circularity. Sorry.
> Your only hope is something I saw in another
> Thread altogether (the sci.physics.research group) about
> GR not having Energy Conservation for the universe as a
> whole. This alone can allow the current era to be hotter
> than the past, and the future to be relatively hotter
> than the present (even if in its own frame it looked
> devoid of energy). However, that loophole is not yet
> proven (not to mention that if energy is not conserved,
> why shouldn't it DISAPPEAR instead of increase over Time?),
> so all you have are mere statements that require each
> other, for any of them to work, and insufficient evidence.
Consider: An object orbitting in a gravity well has energy x. Add energy
to the object, and it orbits at a higher average "altitude". If the well
is becoming less curved (space is expanding), the "heat" energy is coming
from... the well.
> > > > Note: QB particles are always present at any *now*,
> > > > since they must pass by all *nows* on their way
> > > > into the container Universe...
> > >
> > > I see below where you say I am misunderstanding somthing
> > > fundamental about your scenario. For example, in this universe
> > > a BH grows as long as it has anything within reach to consume.
> > > We do not see them grow in this universe as if they were
> > > repositories of the kind of Dark Energy that supposedly causes
> > > the accelerated expansion of a contained universe.
> >
> > I'd wonder if DE would actually evaporate a BH... if I
> > believed in DE, of course! ;>)
>
> No, I was referring to the model of BH-as-container-universe.
> If our universe is accelerating its expansion, then BHs in
> our universe ought to be observed doing something similar,
> with no gobbling of mass required.
Not really. Keep in mind that the Big Bang was the only point we had in
common with the container Universe. Whatever happens to us after the Big
Bang (r less than the event horizon), the container Universe is entirely
unaware of. It interacts *only* with the Universe it is accreting as a
gestalt. "Acceleration" may simply be a non-linearity in the speed of
light as a function of some critical Universal density. Or the "link up"
with another hole to the same container (or different) 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"?
> > >
> > > Oh, the original excuse for the aether was the fact that light
> > > waves are "transverse" waves -- which ONLY are conducted by
> > > SOLIDS -- and speed is proportional to rigidity. This gave
> > > physicists of 1900 as much a dilemma (a "really rigid vacuum?")
> > > as today's have regarding the magnitude of vacuum gravitation.
> > > The dilemma was resolved by the wave-particle duality, which
> > > lets light "wave itself", thereby not needing a rigid conductor
> > > of transverse waves.
> >
> > So since my dementia is to simply to supply a mechanism,
> > where the Standard model doesn't require one... why bother?
>
> Does that mean you might be willing to accept the Standard
> model? If you do, please don't go overboard! I can just
> imagine what you might then have to say about my T.O.E.
> essays! :)
I said I would try and play it Standard. You've been very tolerant, and
can show no less consideration. Now to figure out what Standard is... ;>)
> > > <snip parity violation discovery>
> > > > > > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > ??? Pair production is a "resonance phenomenon" that only
> > > needs a few conditions to be met: A gamma of the right
> > > energy, and an intense electric field through which the
> > > gamma happens to be passing, when it encounters a virtual
> > > pair. What rationale specifies that ONLY the electric
> > > field of an electron will do, to convert a 1.1Mev gamma
> > > into an electron/positron pair?
> >
> > The fact that this is the only place it is observed?
>
> Well, that's a "fact" that I must question. I really
> want to see some evidence that a 1.1Mev gamma can never
> form an electron/positron pair in the vicinity of a
> proton. I always thought this MORE likely to work,
> than when such a gamma encounters an ordinary electron.
> I'll post the Question to the .research group. OK?
Excellent. I hope you can draw some serious answers.
> > Granted, pair production from a completely bare nucleus
> > might be hard to do, but I believe you get no production
> > from a proton stream, until you have more than double
> > the rest energy of a proton.
>
> Why a "proton stream"? We have Compton scattering
> between photons and loose electrons, so a bunch of
> loose protons in a magnetic bottle should also
> interact with photons. Stuffed full enough, it
> should be interesting to see what happens when
> 1.1Mev gammas are sent through that bottle!
Compton scattering is of no interest. Pair creation is.
> <snip>
> > > So, with a 1.1Mev gamma and a proton, if the gamma passes
> > > the proton closely enough and the lucky number comes up,
> > > an electron/positron pair is REALized. Years ago, I
> > > remember reading in Glasstone's "Sourcebook on Atomic
> > > Energy" something about gammas causing pair production
> > > in lead. There was every indication that the NUCLEUS
> > > of the lead atom was involved, and none of the electrons.
> >
> > Not unless the lead had been stripped of its electrons, no.
> >
> > > It seems to me that if what you say is true, there will
> > > be papers out there by searchers looking for (and failing
> > > to find) events like that. Can you find a link? Thanks!
> >
> > Gaaaah! My head is hurting right now. How about on the
> > next go around... or review of your TOEs?
>
> I'll ask the .research group.
OK.
> > > > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > OK, then why is a "point" near a proton inferior to a "point"
> > > near an electron, for pair-production, when both have equal-
> > > strength charges?
> >
> > How can a three-mass, one-charge gestalt come apart,
> > if it is all coincident? Where is the Occam's razor
> > that can separate them?
>
> I'm not understanding what you are saying there. The
> virtuals are popping everywhere; the gamma is running
> into them all the time. IF the gamma has the right
> relative energy to a REAL charged particle, at the
> same time it happens to run into a just-popping pair,
> then the gamma disappears and the pair is REALized.
> Statistics accommodate the probabilities.
I don't accept the probability that an electron, and entwined
electron-positron are coincident. Unless the entwined pair are actually
*everywhere* (to some large but finite extent).
> > > > > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > 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"?
> > >
> > > It is a mathematical thing only, a kind of "shell" around
> > > a black hole, having large overall size but zero thickness.
> > >
> > > > Hell it is a sphere of Uncertainty the size of the Black Hole.
> >
> > As I said, the event horizon presents the same issues as
> > any "point" inside the horizon, so it isn't "thin".
> > It is r_BH thick.
>
> Uhhh, no, the EH is DEFINED as that zone at which the escape
> velocity from the BH is exactly light-speed. That makes it
> thin, because inside the BH, the EV is more than light-speed
> -- and of course outside the BH, the EV is less.
And what have you to say about the Uncertainty of a particle *below* the
boundary? Same thing must be said. How far dead a thing is, twice as dead
is still dead.
> > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > Well, once on the inside of the EH, a "bitten" piece is
> > > subject to all those well-verified rules that KEEP it
> > > bitten (has to travel faster than light to escape). Note
> > > that once separated, the thing that fell into the black
> > > hole continues falling toward the center. It does NOT
> > > remain close-enough/long-enough to the EH for an "unbite".
> >
> > Agreed, with the inference about what/when is happening
> > just below the horizon taken as an exception.
>
> Well, I thought it was generally agreed that Gravitation
> is even stronger inside a BH than outside. So some simple
> things can be said about the inside, based on that.
And that is where "escape velocity = c" equates to "one way arrow of time".
> > > <snip>
> > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > Well, there will not be an infinite number of red-shifted
> > > photons coming from the meteor, for us to see its demise.
> > > When they stop arriving, we can say that the meteor had
> > > finally fallen in.
> >
> > They never stop. Before the "Trump of Doom", they wouldn't
> > stop. We could invent a device to pick up fewer and fewer
> > of ever longer wavelengths. We might no longer care, which
> > would be very true...
>
> Sorry, but they HAVE to stop sometime. There are not an
> infinite number of photons impinging upon the meteor at
> the time it closely approaches the EH. I can agree that
> it might take a long time (perhaps a kind of "half-life"
> description) before the last photon finishes reflecting,
> but we KNOW that the falling meteor physically zooms
> through the EH at a good fraction of light-speed, so
> there MUST be a limited window of photons interacting
> with it. They WILL all either eventually escape or be
> swallowed.
I understand your point, but I have to point out that a photon that
impinges *at* the event horizon is never swallowed (given no further
increase in mass), and can never leave (Hotel California comes to mind).
In between now and infinity is a host of decreasing intensity levels.
Inclusive of a single photon arriving at about the time the hole starts to
evaporate.
> > <snip Casmir vs. observation>
> > > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > Wavelength IS meaningful when certain effects are happening,
> > > like the failure of microwaves to pass through the holes
> > > in a microwave oven door.
> >
> > But not Casimir. Which is not due to physcial absorption
> > of a particle...
>
> Absolutely INCLUDING the Casimir test. Because it involves
> two metal plates close together. Large photon wavelengths
> can no more fit between those plates than they can fit
> through the holes in a microwave oven door. BOTH are
> metal, after all. The door reflects the waves; the plates
> prohibit their virtual-appearance in-between the plates.
*conductive plates* *to which Maxwell applies* and which is fully capable
of collapsing a waveguide (ala Casimir). I suggest you ask this on
.research also... because you are not believing it from me.
> > > > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > No, since there are big waves outside the plates, and no big waves
> > > in-between the plates, there are more interactions on the outside
> > > of the Casimir test, than in-between the metal plates. And the
> > > obsered force is related to those rates of interaction.
> >
> > Big wave = low energy. Low energy = low force.
> > Casimir is more a vacuum...
>
> As you indicated in an equation a while back, this force
> increases with the decreasing gap between the plates.
> This is a naturally logical consequences of the shrunken
> gap preventing a greater and greater range of photon
> sizes from being allowed to virtually pop in-between
> the plates -- so there is a greater and greater
> imbalance between the pops on the outside vs. the inside.
> Also, of course, the fact that smaller forbidden
> photons have more energy than larger wavelengths,
> contributes to the computed Force.
You go the photons right, but suspect you were only humoring me...
> <snip some of mad neutrino Casimir test>
> > > > >
> > > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > My "put the pressure on nutrinos" is poor phrasing. I simply
> > > want to be ABLE to create a zone inside which nutrinos cannot
> > > fit, because of their size, as specified by the wave/particle
> > > duality.
> >
> > Neutrinos have so little interaction ability, based on
> > the quantity passing through the Earth, and who's decays
> > are detected as muons, I wouldn't worry about neutrinos.
>
> Well, that is EXACTLY why I specified that science-fictional
> force-shields would be required! Two of THOSE close-together
> would not let neutrinos fit in-between them, and so virtual
> neutrinos would be prohibited (undoubtedly along with
> photons), and the observed Casimir force would be rather
> larger than for a gap with mere metal plates.
We will never know. Neutronium shields radiate their own neutrinos...
> <snip>
> > > > > > 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).
> > >
> > > No, sorry, but any photons approaching a black hole are
> > > simply going to blue-shift and go right througth the EH.
> > > There are no photons such as you are talking about, coming
> > > from the BH, indicating other photons falling. They don't
> > > interact with each other that way, almost always!
> >
> > We were talking about a meterorite. Light will scatter
> > off the meterorite, to the point that you can see it.
> > It will pass through the various photon orbits (think
> > Einstein rings), deflecting even more light. This light
> > will struggle its way out over some period of time..
> > always at c, of course.
>
> No objection to that, but it belongs elsewhere. HERE we
> are talking about electric charges. I admit I misinterpreted
> what you meant by "painted" photons. I see you were saying
> that the virtual-photons from a falling charged particle
> are still going to be coming away from the EH, even after
> the charged particle falls through it. I think my answer
> has to be that this quantity, also, cannot be infinite, and
> they will have all emerged at some point in time. After
> which the BH will exhibit no electric charge....
A virtual photon is an exchange particle. In the case of a BH, it becomes
a single charged particle (times n), that exchanges virtual photons just as
if it were a Van deGraaf sphere. Quantum interactions don't care about
space, time or curvature thereof. But no interaction on a charged particle
in this Universe will single out a particle below the event horizon. The
effect will be on the gestalt of the BH.
> > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > I understand. Still, somewhere you wrote something about
> > > all photons really being virtual photons. Since the REAL
> > > ones cannot escape a BH, then equating them with virtual
> > > photons does not suddenly let them move at > lightspeed.
> >
> > The QM guys have a dodge for this one too. Virtual photons
> > don't travel. They are quantum, so they merely exchange.
> > Cool huh?
>
> Not so cool. Remember "renormalization"? There are
> infinities that pop out of the QM equations with distressing
> regularity, which have to be carefully swatted down to
> merely finite-size, for the results to be meaningful.
Good. It serves them right for giving me a headache!
> So, one way to envision the EM Force is as two electric
> charges radiating (in all directions!) and absorbing some
> number X of virtual-photons per second.
Gaaaah! May the fleas of a thousand camels...
> Change the
> distance between the charges, and number X varies with
> the inverse-square law, as a simple/natural result of
> radiation/propagation of virtual photons in all directions.
> Take that propagation away, and whence comes the inverse
> square law? More, what is to keep infinite numbers of
> virtual photons from exchanging at once?
Quantum events don't occur in time. So they do all exchange "at once".
> > I like it as "the field from all the charges that the BH
> > swallowed is still centered on the charges".
>
> That's logical, as long as the virtual photons from
> the charges can escape from INSIDE a BH.
Not until they *do* escape are they "individually addressible". The BH is
addressed, or not at all.
> > > > And virtual photons don't propagate, but simply
> > > > "exchange" between quantum particles that don't
> > > > know what distance is.
> > >
> > > This may be a crux in our dialog. My preceding paragraph
> > > clearly shows the dilemma with respect to BHs and the
> > > virtual photons associated with electric charge. F-T-L
> > > virtual photons would OF COURSE let electric charges in
> > > a BH be recognized by the world. But REAL photons
> > > cannot escape a BH, and to whatever extent you think
> > > virtual photons resemble REAL ones, that is the extent
> > > to which "exchange" is non-instantaneous. I have what
> > > I think is a pretty good description of the exchange
> > > process, USING propagation, in my first T.O.E. essay.
> > > Also, "not knowing what distance is" makes a hash of
> > > the Inverse Square Law....
> >
> > OK. Saved for TOE discussions.
>
> and reiterated above, partly because the BH context
> is relevant to your hypothesis. (If you answer above,
> this short section can be snipped)
I'm liking virtual photons less and less. Snip away.
> <snip
> > > > > > > > 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...
> > >
> > > If the virtual photons can pop into existence in equal
> > > quantities on both sides of the plates AND in-between
> > > the plates, then there is no imbalance and no Force.
> > > That's what you get for letting exterior real photons
> > > pass through the metal of a Faraday cage -- they can
> > > pass through Casimir plates, also!!!
> >
> > Not so. Maxwell has rules for photons near conductors.
> > Casimir requires conductors, not insulators.
> > Think waveguides...
>
> I was trying to make the point that since a Faraday cage
> is made of metal, you cannot have REAL photons getting
> inside it.
You cannot exclude REAL anything quantum with a Faraday cage. All you can
do is keep absoptions and emissions on one side. The "path" you cannot
effect.
> So, REAL photons cannot be a factor in a
> Casimir test being done inside a Faraday cage.
Yes, they can, because Casimir is about "propagation" and not absorption.
> Because
> IF REAL photons can get through the cage, THEN they
> can also get through the Casimier plates!
> "You cannot have it both ways".
The photons propagating transverse to the plane of the plates don't affect
the Casimir plates. I *can* have it both ways. Ask .research, since you
are not believing me.
> <snip>
> > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > It takes LOTS of photons to explain the Casimir Force. And as
> > > to size, if the two plates are 1 micron apart, then all photons
> > > larger than that size are excluded from getting in-between the
> > > plates -- and 2-micron photons are very easily detectable!
> > > Except that inside a Faraday cage, where we should be doing
> > > this Casimir test, we won't be detecting them.
> >
> > You've got a whole Universe full of photons,
> > some orientations of which are in position to
> > "press on" your plates.
>
> NONE of which are allowed inside a Faraday Cage,
> to get at the plates.
"Propagation" not absorption, dude. No kidding.
> > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > Well, if you recall near the start of this Message, I
> > > wrote something about virtual particles in the vacuum
> > > constantly popping, absorbing and re-emitting REAL
> > > photons, and then vanishing. To describe a real photon
> > > in terms of its temporary bouts of freedom between
> > > absorptions....more than a little resembles virtual
> > > existence.
> >
> > Uncanny, ain't it?
>
> Except that above you weren't too thrilled by the
> idea, AND that in this case the photons really ARE
> REAL. They are not going to get through a
> Faraday cage to get at the Casimir plates. But
> the Casimir force is still going to be there.
I'm still not happy with it. I have sitting in front of me a plate of, for
all intents and purposes, sh*t I don't like. It is then "uncanny" that it
also *smells* like sh*t I don't like. My humor escapes me sometimes, too.
> > > > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > But it IS REALized!!! A particle with "zero point motion" is
> > > by its very name a MOVING particle, possessing kinetic energy!
> > > Temporarily! But again, and again, and again....
> >
> > Zero Point Energy is potential. There are lots of scams
> > that seek to tap into this for free power. I'm not sure
> > if you are talking about some sort of Brownian motion...
> > but I don't buy the photon mutually absorbed/reemitted by
> > an entwined QBP, no.
>
> No, here I'm talking about a different aspect of Uncertainty.
> We know it allows virtuals to pop into temporary existence.
> We know it allows atoms to absorb photons that are slightly
> "off" from a specific allowed energy-level.
I don't know that Uncertainty applies directly here... but press on.
> And, we know
> that it allows Helium to remain a liquid, even at Absolute
> Zero. Because even with perfectly Zero REAL kinetic energy,
> helium is allowed to temporarily borrow enough Uncertain
> kinetic energy to prevent them clumping into a solid blob.
A solid enters a slightly lower energy state (latent heat of fusion).
Maybe there is no lower energy state for helium, so no reason it should
become "solid".
> I should mention that I see "zero-point energy" as being a
> "uniform heat sink", from which no energy can be extracted
> (2nd Law of Thermodynamics).
Agreed. Supported. Disappointed, nevertheless.
> > > > I don't see the automatic connection you do between
> > > > Casimir and QBP.
> > >
> > > Well, I have tried to explain it again near the start of
> > > this Message. Let me know it it makes any more sense!
> >
> > ...steeples his fingers...
> > Vee shall see! ;>)
We've just about finished hashing out my "particles from the future".
We've got some contention on pair creation and BHs. And some on Casimir.
Do you wish to snip away, where you feel it appropriate, REALizing that we
touch the same topic sometimes more than once? I don't mean to make you do
the dirty work, but I have been accused of being too draconian...
David A. Smith
- Next message: suzysewnshow: "Re: Absolute Time"
- Previous message: robert j. kolker: "Re: Reflections on Aether"
- In reply to: vernonner3voltazim: "Re: Question about Vacuum Gravity"
- Next in thread: vernonner3voltazim: "Re: Question about Vacuum Gravity"
- Reply: vernonner3voltazim: "Re: Question about Vacuum Gravity"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
