Re: John Polasek "Dual Space" (real or imaginary??)
- From: John C. Polasek <jpolasek@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 03:34:21 GMT
On 15 Jun 2005 16:51:01 -0700, "p6" <atomicp6@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>Let's start from the beginning.
>
>What is science real take on the vacuum?
>
>Is there many belief system among different scientists along
>this line?
>
>Do you believe that there is a staggering of energy in the
>vacuum as suggested by John Wheeler. If he is wrong.
>Why is he wrong?
>
>I got the following from web site that introduces the concept
>of quantum vacuum. Which do you think is fact, fiction or
>exagerations??
>
> "In quantum physics the quantum vacuum is defined as the lowest
>energy state of a system of which the equations obey wave mechanics
>and special relativity. It is considerably more than just the state of
>a system, however. It is the locus of a vast energy field that is
>neither classically electromagnetic nor gravitational, nor yet nuclear
>in nature. Instead, it is the originating source of the known
>electromagnetic, gravitational, and nuclear forces and fields. It is
>the originating source of matter itself.
That is exactly what Dual Space says: that all of matter is made by
taking material from Espace (Q.V.). The electrons are taken, and the
positrons left behind.
> The technical definitions of the quantum vacuum point to a continuous
>energy sea in which particles of matter are specific substructures.
>According to Paul Dirac's calculation, all particles in positive
>energy states have negative- energy counterparts (by now such"
>antiparticles" have been found experimentally for all presently known
>particles). The zero- ppoint field of the quantum vacuum is a "Dirac-
>sea": a sea of particles in the negative energy state.
Dirac only made a mathematical guess by observing the minus sign (as
well as the plus) in front of the total energy equation. He had no
more to go on than this mathematical extrapolation.
>These particles
>are not observable - physicists cal l them "virtual." But they are not
> fictional for all that.
Not al all virtual, except that in Espace they ( electron and positron
pairs) have not been created yet, that is released from their cells.
>By stimulating the negative energy states of
>the ZPF with sufficient energy (of the order of 10- 27 erg),
There's an error here, for to" kick out" a pair takes 1.022MeV and
that's equal to 1.636x10^-6 erg not 10^-27erg).
>a particular region of it can be "kicked" into the real (that is,
>observable) state of positive energy. This is the process known as
>pair- creation: out of the vacuum emerges a positive energy (real)
>particle, with a negative energy (virtual) particle remaining in it.
No, no, pair production is both go out and become temporarily real,
but it's reversible as both go back home.
Electron out and positron remaining in the cell is the irreversible
act of creation. The positron is virtual in that you can't touch it.
>Thus the Dirac- sea is everywhere; the observable universe floats, as
>it were, on its surface.
Yes, the electron-originated entities populate our universe very
thinly. You may say they float together if the positron is at xyz0 and
the electron at xyz cT.
>The quantum vacuum contains a staggering
>density of energy. John Wheeler estimated its matter- equivalent at
>1094 gram per cm3 - and that is more than all the matter in the
>universe put together.
Dual Space gets a much lower 4.1e7 gm/cc or 1.843e28 erg/cc.
> Compared with this energy density, the energy
>of the nucleus of the atom - the most energetic chunk of matter in the
> known universe - seems almost minuscule: it is "merely" 1014
>gram/cm3. The vacuum itself is not material: its zero- point energies
>- exceed al l the energies bound in matter 1040 time s - are in the
>negative state. This is fortunate, for if they were not, the universe
>would instantly collapse to a size smaller than the radius of an atom.
>(This follows from E = mc2,
In DS it takes 1/2 mc2 to pry loose an electron and another 1/2 mc2 to
accelerate to speed of light so yes, E = mc2, but we need only
calculate for the KE half of it: Total energy = mv^2 + m(c-dc)^2 =
mc^2 (never more or less)
>Einstein's celebrated mass- energy
>equivalence relation: energy corresponds to mass, and mass in turn
>entails gravitation.)
It may entail gravitation in relativity but in DS we know what makes
gravitation: removing electrons during creation, weakening Espace.
>Because the "real" world of matter - that is, of
>energy bound in mass
I hate to say this but energy is not bound up in mass. I just showed
how it's the handling of the electron, the removing and accelerating
it that require the expenditure of mc2, but you should never think
about getting mc2 back.
>- is so much less energetic than the vacuum, the
>observable universe is not a solid condensate floating on top of the
>vacuum, but like a set of bubbles suspended in it.
Bubbles is right. Espace is 5 million times denser than iron.
>In terms of energy,
>the material world is not a solidification of the quantum vacuum, but
>a thinning of it."
Right again, the "thinning of it", meaning the taking of electrons out
for creation of our universe.
Mr. Dual Space
If you have something to say, write an equation.
If you have nothing to say, write an essay
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- John Polasek "Dual Space" (real or imaginary??)
- From: p6
- Re: John Polasek "Dual Space" (real or imaginary??)
- From: Morituri-|-Max
- Re: John Polasek "Dual Space" (real or imaginary??)
- From: Nick
- Re: John Polasek "Dual Space" (real or imaginary??)
- From: Morituri-|-Max
- Re: John Polasek "Dual Space" (real or imaginary??)
- From: p6
- John Polasek "Dual Space" (real or imaginary??)
- Prev by Date: Re: i know you suck but do you swallow?
- Next by Date: Re: Time is an illusion -- mor-ons Lynds
- Previous by thread: Re: John Polasek "Dual Space" (real or imaginary??)
- Next by thread: Re: John Polasek "Dual Space" (real or imaginary??)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
