Re: Question about Gravitation of Vacuum Self-Energy
From: vernonner3voltazim (vnemitz_at_pinn.net)
Date: 08/06/04
- Next message: Very cryptic: "Need the vacuum belong to Hilbert space?"
- Previous message: Boris Borcic: "Re: Relativity and Dark Matter"
- In reply to: island: "Re: Question about Gravitation of Vacuum Self-Energy"
- Next in thread: Tim S: "Re: Question about Gravitation of Vacuum Self-Energy"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 08:04:57 +0000 (UTC)
island <island_in_the_stream@earthlink.net> wrote:
> vernonner3voltazim wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the replies, folks!
> > Sorry about my delay in responding; for a few days after I
> > posted my query, I never saw that it passed the moderator,
> > so gave up looking. Today I found it by accident.
>
> > > chronon (stephen@chronon.org) wrote:
> > > You ask why vacuum self-energy gives a repuslion rather
> > > than a gravitational attraction. My understanding of
> > > this is as follows: If the vacuum has energy then you
> > > need supply that energy to create more vacuum. Think
> > > of a piston in a sealed container you have to do work
> > > to pull it out. In that case it's the external air
> > > pressure pushing, but you should imagine a case where
> > > the work has to be done simply to create more vacuum.
> > > This means that there is effectively a negative
> > > pressure in a vacuum with self-energy.
>
> > I do understand this, but it still does not make sense
> > in the context of the Universe. The expanding Universe
> > is creating more vacuum, right? The energy to do that
> > should be coming FROM that expansion. Next, if that
> > new vacuum is now a source of repulsion in the Universe,
> > causing acceleration and the creation of even more
> > vacuum, then what happened to Energy Conservation?
>
>
> You don't have to "pull on the plunger to increase the
> vacuum". You can also increase the vacuum by way of
> condensation or compression, otherwise known as rarefaction.
>
> General Relativity says that gravitation is essentially
> curvature due to the energy contained in a region, so the
> condensation of enough vacuum energy over a region of space
> effectively converters this energy to the positve mass of
> particle pairs, and the 'departure' is maintained in this
> manner. These departures will no longer produce negative
> curvature, so they cannot have negative mass, because the
> energy density of these particles does not represent the
> background density.
I'm sorry, but that is not clear. GR has never had much to
do with particle pairs, although perhaps you are referring
to Hawking's efforts to combine some of QM with GR?
Also, I do not understand the phrase, "the 'departure' is
maintained". I'm sure it's because I'm missing some sort
of key background information. Fill me in, please!?
> Negative mass particles would make up the cosmological
> constant by way of -rho, which is entirely difffernt
> than observed antimatter particles, which do not.
I think what you said about -rho can be true only if
negative mass particles outnumber ordinary-mass particles.
Unless I need even more background info that I already
think. I'm getting the impression that you think the
sea of virtual particles in the vacuum has moments of
greater and lesser density, and that that leads to
various consequences -- EXCEPT that the sea ITSELF is
a consequence of Uncertainty. "greater and lesser
density" then just refers to places where greater and
lesser amounts of Uncertainty happen to be happening.
Now, I do know that some of those Uncertain events
can influence/decrease other Uncertain events (per the
Casimir effect), and I've speculated that their may
be other Uncertain events than can influence/increase
other Uncertain events (per Symmetry), but I don't
see this as being as complicated as you describe.
> Holes that get left in the vacuum are then a result of
> condenstion of energy that only has negative mass
> because it exists in a negative density state until
> the immense gravitational energy of a Black Hole or
> other high energy photon events result in an incease
> in uncertainty that cause vacuum fluctions which
> enables the creation process.
I have several problems with what you wrote there.
"Holes that get left in the vacuum"??? This sounds
like you are trying to Conserve Energy in SPITE of
the Uncertainty Principle, which allows minor
temporary violations. Thus, no holes would be left
in the vacuum, when a pair of virtual particles pop
into temporary existence. Also, your phrase
"an increase in uncertainty" is also problematic,
because Uncertainty is not the "result" of anything.
It simply IS, a part of the fabric of Reality.
> The main difference between this and Dirac's Hole
> Theory is that BOTH both the electron as well as
> the anti-electron will leave REAL holes in the
> vacuum.
Sorry, I need your answers to the preceding issues
before I can believe that.
> As with electric charge, the normal distribution of
> negative energy does not contribute to pair creation.
> Only departures from the normal distribution in a
> vacuum will isolate enough vacuum energy to produce
> virtual particle pairs. These pairs can be converted
> into real particles given enough energy, but they do
> not have -rho if they represent localized departures
> from the norm.
And now I am getting the impression that you are trying
to describe two "levels" of virtual particles, perhaps
because you prefer Einstein's "God does not play dice"
scenario. But the Bell inequality experiments have
indicated that dice-play is the norm....
> In terms of the Entropy of a Black Hole, the emmited
> antielectron has the same gravitational properties
> as an electron and the electron has a greater chance
> for survival, (thus maintaining the departureo
> indefinitely), since it might be a long time before
> it meets an antiparticle if its counterpart
> antiparticle gets sucked into the black
> hole.
The event horizon of a black hole is a mathematically
thin (zero thickness) boundary from which nothing can
escape. So, in the case when a particle/antiparticle
pair pops into temporary existence, they are initially
allowed to possess very high kinetic energies (near
light-speed). If a fluctuation of the event horizon's
position just happens to gobble just one of the two
particles, the connection between the pair is broken,
such that they can no longer disappear in unison (the
gobbled particle can't get out of the black hole).
The hole pays for its gobbling by giving up whatever
amount of mass/energy allows the ungobbled virtual
particle to become REAL, be it neutrino, electron,
proton, etc (including any antiparticle). If the
ungobbled particle happens to be moving fast enough
in the right direction, then it can escape the black
hole completely. As you say, antiparticles have a
hard time staying alive, in a universe full of ordinary
types. But when they meet their opposite numbers and
mutully annihilate, photons appear that ALSO may
continue to escape from the black hole. Depending on
direction of travel, of course.
> There will be a negative energy contribution for
> each occupied state of positive energy as well as
> a negative energy contribution for each unoccupied
> state of negative energy, because negative pressure
> increases in proportion to the holes that the
> departures represent.
I shall doubt that because negative * negative = positive.
So, if it takes negative to balance positive, then it
takes positive to balance negative.
> If there are no walls to the container, then the
> process described above will affect vacuum expansion
> while G will remain constant, because the increase
> in mass energy which occurs by way of condensation
> of vacuum energy, will immediately be offset by the
> described increase in negative pressure which
> necessarily occurs if negative mass particles have
> negative density, until they don't.
How can you say that about negative mass particles,
when we have none on-hand to study?
> The subject goes right off the charts in terms of
> its depth, and here's a link that explains it all
> better, although I really haven't even scratched
> the surface there either.
>
> http://www.geocities.com/naturescience//index.html
Thanks, but it seems to have the same problems I
mentioned above.
(snip)
> Dirac's cosmological model is valid, if the sign of
> the mass indicates that the asymmetry that exists
> between the two classes of particles is due to the
> fact that the antiparticle exists in a negative
> energy state, by way of -rho and negative mass,
> until enough vacuum energy is condensed over an
> isolated area to achieve positive gravitational
> curvature.
As mentioned previously, you seem to be trying to
apply Conservation to Uncertain events.
> Particle theory says that for every fermion type
> there is another fermion type that has exactly
> the same mass as its counterpart particle,
Those would be ordinary antiparticles!
> ... and negative mass and density particles explain
> this without jumping to the conclusion that particle
> theory is necessarily wrong because our
> observations don't seem to support this predicted
> symmetry.
??? Again, how can you say that? We have no
negative mass particles on-hand to say much about
how they will behave. Sure, we can speculate that
**IF** they existed, then it is reasonable that
they be similar to particles we already know well,
and that their existence may be handy in solving
various problems with Physics. But such handiness
is not proof that they do exist.
Now, here is something you might find interesting
to think about. As you know, the Energy * Time
relation for Uncertainty lets any specific energy
quantity waver temporarily. And you know that
the Momentum * Position relation is just as valid.
Well, suppose you had a virtual-particle pair that
consisted of one ordinary electron and one equivalent
particle having negative mass:
ordinary e <--- (pop) ---> e neg-mass
After figuring what is needed for this event, we
find that total mass that appeared is Zero, total
kinetic energy that appeared is Zero, but the total
momentum that appeared is nonZero. This event,
then, could be the quantum consequence of the
Momentum * Position relation for Uncertainty!
That popped momentum, of course, is not allowed to
persist, so the pair of particles must vanish, the
same as an ordinary particle/anti-particle pair
vanishes because their borrowed energy cannot persist.
> Symmetry is maintained if particles that are
> created from the energy of the vacuum, have
> negative mass and density before they are condensed
> into positive mass and density virtual particles,
> which can then be converted into real particles,
> given enough energy.
As I said before, you are making things too
complicated.
> Negative energy and density are then generally
> maintained by the negative pressure component,
> so both virtual and real that are created will
> increase negative pressure via further
> rarefaction of the vacuum.
Thank you for trying to answer my Question that
started this Thread. I apologize if great gaps
in my knowledge are keeping me from understanding
you properly. As I said before, "Fill me in!"
- Next message: Very cryptic: "Need the vacuum belong to Hilbert space?"
- Previous message: Boris Borcic: "Re: Relativity and Dark Matter"
- In reply to: island: "Re: Question about Gravitation of Vacuum Self-Energy"
- Next in thread: Tim S: "Re: Question about Gravitation of Vacuum Self-Energy"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
