Re: John Polasek "Dual Space" (real or imaginary??)
- From: John C. Polasek <jpolasek@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 16:02:28 GMT
On 16 Jun 2005 15:10:31 -0700, "p6" <atomicp6@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>John C. Polasek wrote:
>> On 15 Jun 2005 22:03:57 -0700, "p6" <atomicp6@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >John C. Polasek wrote:
>> >> On 15 Jun 2005 16:51:01 -0700, "p6" <atomicp6@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >>
snip>>
>> >How come physicists don't suggest similar
>> >lines.
>>
>> Because no one has seriously studied permittivity, the one simplest
>> facet of the vacuum that could be analyzed mercilessly. Look in the
>> index of most E&M books and you will seldom find any entry like
>> vacuum, vacuum capacitor, permittivity. Most cgs protagonists think
>> eps0 and mu0 are bogus coefficients introduced so engineers could work
>> in more familiar units. Our recently departed cgs'er had to teach SI
>> units for 20-30 years and "was never so glad to dump it when I
>> retired".
>>
>> >They think the quantum vacuum is sufficient. Why is it
>> >not sufficient?
>>
>> It's not sufficient because they don't know the first thing about it
>> except as a concept.
>>
>> In DS we show that if a region has pair charge density rho of 3.6e21
>> Coul/m^3, wiht each particle restrained by spring constant K =
>> 2.6e14N/m, then you can express the electric compliance of eps0 in
>> terms of the cell's coefficients as
>>
>> eps0 = 2e*rho/K or e^2/Lmc^2 farad/meter
>>
>> in Eq.14, #1 paper, where L is cell size 3.54e-14m.
>>
>> >Anyway. I wonder what is your thought about Sonoluminescence
>> >or the emission of photon in water bubble when certain sound
>> >is directed to it. It's one of physics great mysteries
>> >side by side with high temperature superconductivity. I found
>> >the following alleged explanation. Wonder if you can offer
>> >some insight about it. What is your general comment about
>> >virtual particles (or its replacement):
>> >
>> >"A proposed explanation, made earlier this year by physicist Claudia
>> >Eberlein of the University of Cambridge, involves an excursion into
>> >the strange world of quantum mechanics, the rules that govern matter
>> >at the tiniest scales. Quantum mechanics states that empty space is
>> >not empty at all, but is made up of fluctuating fields that pop in
>> >and out of existence. These fleeting fields can be considered
>> >"virtual particles," short lived particles that are ordinarily not
>> >detected. But adding a tremendous amount of energy can drag these
>> >virtual particles into the observable world. Drawing upon ideas
>> >proposed by the late physicist Julian Schwinger,
>> Schwinger thought the breakdown of space would occur with a field Ec
>> in which an electron would gain rest mass energy in one Compton
>> wavelength.
>> In DS we have the same logic, rescaled: an electron would pop out in a
>> field 2.88e19V/m, quite a bit higher than Schwingers because in Espace
>> the CWL is shrunk down by alpha. Too much to go into here.
>>
>> snip-no bubbles.
>> >
>> >p6
>> John Polasek
>> http://www.dualspace.net
>
>
>Gee. If you are right in any way about the permittivity being
>misinterpreted by QFT folks and you can present the right
>interpretation. Your stuff is bigger than Feynman.
>
>Maybe what we can do is to get the best QFT geniuses and comment
>on your hypothesis. Or better yet. Try to discuss it with the
>wizards at sci.physics.research.
JP sez: At spr they are quite careful about allowing anything that
might be considered speculative. I don't see any reason not to
introduce the topic, but you may find yourself simply stirring up a
vibrant lack of interest :).
>What would it takes to make
>them consider the possibility the permittivity is not just a
>scale factor but has solid reality. Have you tried talking to
>them.
>
>If it's that obvious, I wonder why they just can't accept it.
JP sez: There's just a whole bunch of people who are convinced that
electrostatic energy is stored on the plates, (surely not in the
vacuum!) even though it is plain that energy cannot be stored in 2
dimensions. They are willing to equate cause and effect in D = E.
Taking their standpoint though, the vacuum IS indisputably empty. It
would take a whole lot of physics (and imagination) to firstly suppose
that energy really can be stored in a vacuum, and to accept the
surprise when we find out how this trick is pulled off, there being no
charge in the vacuum, and then to be willing to accept a second space
jammed with pairs, all to make this permittivity become real, but
unfortunately, all at the behest of someone who, with 95%*
probability, is just another crackpot.
* (just an estimate).
I am heartened by your faith in the scheme, but I don't know if I have
told the story the right way.
>I'll find a way to get inside sci.physics.research on this whole
>permittivity thing and let's see what's their opinion. Or just
>let me know if you have tried it already and the reason why
>they can't just accept it.
>
>p6
John Polasek
.
- 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
- Re: John Polasek "Dual Space" (real or imaginary??)
- From: John C . Polasek
- Re: John Polasek "Dual Space" (real or imaginary??)
- From: p6
- Re: John Polasek "Dual Space" (real or imaginary??)
- From: John C . Polasek
- Re: John Polasek "Dual Space" (real or imaginary??)
- From: p6
- John Polasek "Dual Space" (real or imaginary??)
- Prev by Date: Re: The Conflict Between Quantum Theory and General Relativity
- Next by Date: Re: Punching
- 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
|
