Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[Tubbythin]

What might exert "negative" pressure in a vacuum? What did you intend to add or subtract from a "pure" vacuum to achieve "negative" pressure?

You can think of it as virtual photons.

Keep in mind that at the level of QM, an all pervasive EM field around Guth's "heat thingy" would push (big blue arrows point inward) *into* Guth's near singularity thingy.

Gobbledegook.

 

[sol invictus]

Here's a paper measuring Casimir pressure. Note the sign of the result (see e.g. Figure 1), and the functional form (which shows that the pressure tends to minus infinity as the cavity shrinks - which in MM's world means the pressure outside must be +infinity).

 

[derekmcd]

Michael,

Try not to think about the minus sign in terms of elementary arithmetic. Think of it as a negative sign in terms of overall contribution to a closed system. As the plates are placed closer together, the pressure between them tends in the negative direction. It is a negative contribution... a negative pressure.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Nope. No gas, no gas pressure. But other things exert pressure.

Look at the direction of the blue arrows and the relative sizes of each arrow.

The "other things" that "exert (kinetic) pressure", do so to all sides of all plates at once. One side simply receives more QM force than the other. It is simply a subatomic kinetic energy exchange, with more particles running through the "vacuum" than we can possibly imagine, or possibly keep out.

Guth's notion of "negative pressure in a vacuum" is nonsense. There is always some form of "kinetic pressure" on all sides of both of those plates, even with no molecules in the chamber. The kinetic pressure comes from the carrier particles of the EM field rather than molecules, but for all intents and purposes, it is simply "kinetic pressure", just like molecular pressure.

The basic problem here is you folks do *not* understand what is *physically* occurring in the chamber. To you it's all just a math formula, and the minus sign is all that you understand. In reality however, there is no "negative force" or "negative pressure" in the chamber. There is just "pressure" and "force" on all sides of all the plates in virtually every Casimir experiment that has ever been done.

 

[Michael Mozina]

My mind can itself around the idea of "quantum force" that pushes on all sides of the plates. That is the Casimir effect.

So we agree that there is "kinetic pressure" pushing on all sides of those plates, correct?

That is the negative pressure as shown by the theory and and measured by experiments.

The term "negative pressure" is complete baloney. There is "greater kinetic pressure" on the outside of the plates, and there is "less kinetic pressure" on the inside of those plates, but there is no "negative pressure" or "negative force" involved. It's just "kinetic pressure" differences between the inside and outside of the plates that pushes them together. Period. It's not mysterious and has nothing to do with "negative pressure". There is "greater pressure" on the outside and "less pressure" on the inside.

It's essentially no different than a airplane wing analogy where there is "higher pressure" under the wing, and "lower pressure" above the wing, so we get lift. It is not "negative pressure" that pulls the wing upwards from above the wing, the greater pressure under the wing pushes the wing up.

Since you arre incapable of answering questions about the Casimir effect

Pure Baloney! I've answered tons of questions on this topic. You are *incapable* of noticing that the physics behind the process precludes you from claiming that there is "negative pressure" in a vacuum. You refuse to physically identify what creates "negative pressure".

There is kinetic pressure on *every side* of *every plate*. Your "mind" only understands "math". You seem to be physically incapable of comprehending the *physics* of what is actually occurring in the chamber. No amount of "negative pressure" exists in the chamber. No amount of "negative force" exists in that chamber either. All the "forces' and all the the "pressures" that are present in the chamber, push on *all sides* of *all plates*.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Michael,

Try not to think about the minus sign in terms of elementary arithmetic.

Your side needs to start thinking in terms of "actual physics", and not "elementary math". That seems to be the whole problem with your industry as a whole in fact. You folks fixate on the math to the absolute exclusion of the physical process, so you fail to actually "understand" what your math formulas relate to, and tell you.

Think of it as a negative sign in terms of overall contribution to a closed system.

You need to think of it as the "pressure difference" between the outside and the inside of the plates. It is the "big blue arrows" *minus* the "little blue arrows".

As the plates are placed closer together, the pressure between them tends in the negative direction. It is a negative contribution... a negative pressure.

There is no "negative contribution". There is "more contribution" on the outside of the plates (big blue arrows), and "less contribution" on the inside of the plates (little blue arrows), and a "difference between the two pressures".

There is no "negative pressure", nor any "negative force" that is actually "pulling" on any plate. It's all just kinetic energy "pushing" on all sides of all the plates, with "more" kinetic energy on the outside and "less" kinetic energy on the inside.

 

[Michael Mozina]

We are not discussing the pressure in a gas (however dilute the gas, e.g. in a vacuum chamber).
By definition a vacuum has no gas in it.

By who's definition? Space does not contain a "pure" vacuum, nor can we create a "zero pressure" (no gas in it) vacuum here on Earth. Guth's "false vacuum" isn't a "pure vacuum" to begin with.

You are asserting that the air pressure in the vacuum chamber just happens to act exactly like the Casimir effect (to 1% accuracy) which is a vacuum pressure.

Actually all I said was that it was not "infinite", but closer to 1ATM. I said nothing about a percentage of accuracy.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You can think of it as virtual photons.

If we do that, we have to think of them as virtual photons that are *everywhere* inside the chamber, with MORE OF THEM pushing the outside of the plates (BIG BLUE ARROWS), and less of them pushing against the inside of the plates(LITTLE BLUE ARROWS).

 

[The Man]

Look at the direction of the blue arrows and the relative sizes of each arrow.

Indeed look at the directions, directed inwards and directed outwards. Pick one as positive and the other then becomes negative. Repulsive forces are considered positive making attractive forces negative as has been explained to you time and time again.

The "other things" that "exert (kinetic) pressure", do so to all sides of all plates at once. One side simply receives more QM force than the other. It is simply a subatomic kinetic energy exchange, with more particles running through the "vacuum" than we can possibly imagine, or possibly keep out.

To be precise the Casimir force results directly from the exclusion of the longer wavelengths of the vacuum field from between the plates. It is called zero point energy, outside the plates the vacuum field is at that zero point energy or more specifically has a zero energy potential. Thus it specifically can not result in any kinetic action as it does not result in a force and can not transfer energy to anything. By excluding the longer wavelengths between the plates the vacuum field between the plates is less then that zero becoming a negative energy potential and that can become kinetic as it results in a negative or attractive force. For some reason these considerations seems as some contrivance to you, but without maintaining consistent references, repulsive forces as positive and attractive forces as negative as well as less then zero point energy resulting in a negative energy potential, then conservation of energy and Newton’s third law fail.

By your interpretations the zero point field always exerts some compressive (or as you put it ’kinetic’) force which you consider a positive energy potential. If that were the case then we could easily extract energy from that field resulting in perpetual motion and free energy machines. Do you actually believe that such obvious and pervasive violations of conservation of energy are possible and modern physics is simply ignorant of them?

 

[temporalillusion]

Here's a paper measuring Casimir pressure. Note the sign of the result (see e.g. Figure 1), and the functional form (which shows that the pressure tends to minus infinity as the cavity shrinks - which in MM's world means the pressure outside must be +infinity).

Did you miss this MM?

Instead of hand waving can you please provide some real data? sol and others have.

You say the wiki page on the Casimir effect is right, then you say the formula is chosen to be oversimplified, please provide the correct complete formula, or at least point out where the derivation on the wiki page goes wrong.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Indeed look at the directions, directed inwards and directed outwards. Pick one as positive and the other then becomes negative.

Gah! No. They are simply *directional* components of positive "pressure" that effects all sides of all plates in unequal amounts.

There is no physical possibility of achieving "negative pressure in a vacuum". At best case, (assuming a QM process in space), we might have directional components *pushing into* Guth's near singularity thingy. In no way will the vacuum will ever achieve "negative pressure".

By your interpretations the zero point field always exerts some compressive (or as you put it ’kinetic’) force which you consider a positive energy potential. If that were the case then we could easily extract energy from that field

How? Do you mean as in the Casimir effect? How will you generate energy that way?

resulting in perpetual motion and free energy machines.

Er, technically it would not be "free energy", it would be "existing energy" you simply "harnessed" in some physical way.

Do you actually believe that such obvious and pervasive violations of conservation of energy are possible

First of all, it would not be a "violation of conservation of energy". We have preexisting energy in the system. It would be like learning to harness the energy from the billions of neutrinos that pass through us every second. Assuming you figured out a way to harness that energy through some physical mechanism, it would not be a question of violating any conservation of energy laws. It would simply be an example of tapping into an existing energy source, like wind or photons, or any other form of energy.

and modern physics is simply ignorant of them?

The guys that wrote the WIKI article and provided the drawings and who study QM are certainly not ignorant of them. Astronomers however are quite another story.

 

[ben m]

Is your hypothesis, MM, please tell us what the actual value of the pressure is outside of the plates. Is it zero? One atmosphere? 10^10 Pascals? Infinity?

 

[temporalillusion]

The guys that wrote the WIKI article and provided the drawings and who study QM are certainly not ignorant of them. Astronomers however are quite another story.

And yet you call their math specific chosen to be oversimplified.

What's the full formula to calculate the pressure? Where does there derivation go wrong?

 

[The Man]

Gah! No. They are simply *directional* components of positive "pressure" that effects all sides of all plates in unequal amounts.

You do understand that the directional or vector component of “pressure” is force, don’t you.

There is no physical possibility of achieving "negative pressure in a vacuum". At best case, (assuming a QM process in space), we might have directional components *pushing into* Guth's near singularity thingy. In no way will the vacuum will ever achieve "negative pressure".

So all directions are positive?

How? Do you mean as in the Casimir effect? How will you generate energy that way?

Well since this always positive and always kinetic, even at a zero energy potential, is your interpretation I’ll let you answer those questions.

Er, technically it would not be "free energy", it would be "existing energy" you simply "harnessed" in some physical way.

Would you care to elaborate on how we might ‘harness’ the “existing energy” in a zero point field.

First of all, it would not be a "violation of conservation of energy". We have preexisting energy in the system.

Well please tell us how to make use of that “preexisting energy” in the vacuum field that you consider kinetic and representing a positive energy potential.

It would be like learning to harness the energy from the billions of neutrinos that pass through us every second. Assuming you figured out a way to harness that energy through some physical mechanism, it would not be a question of violating any conservation of energy laws. It would simply be an example of tapping into an existing energy source, like wind or photons, or any other form of energy.

Well since none of those examples represent the zero point energy of a system or the vacuum energy that results in the Casimir effect your talking about something different now. You do understand that difference, don’t you?

The guys that wrote the WIKI article and provided the drawings and who study QM are certainly not ignorant of them. Astronomers however are quite another story.

Oh so they found a way to make use of your always positive potential and always kinetic zero point vacuum field and are, what, just keeping it to themselves?

 

[Reality Check]

By who's definition? Space does not contain a "pure" vacuum, nor can we create a "zero pressure" (no gas in it) vacuum here on Earth. Guth's "false vacuum" isn't a "pure vacuum" to begin with.

And eveyone knows this. You miss the basic point that you can have air pressure and vacuum pressure. Just becaure there is matter in a vacuum does not mean that the vacuum fluctuations magically vanish.

Actually all I said was that it was not "infinite", but closer to 1ATM. I said nothing about a percentage of accuracy.

I did not say anything about the pressure being infinite.

What I said is that if you are asserting that there is only air pressure being measured in the vacuum chambers used in the experiments then it is up to you to provide the Nobel prize winning proof that this air pressure will cause a force that varies inversely as the fourth power of the separation between the plates. This just happens to be the measured force variation (to a 1% accuracy).

Otherwise you are just parroting a delusion.

Outstanding questions for MM from me:

First asked 26 March 2009
Here is a simpler situation:


Consider these 2 scenarios

1. A force F pushes on a surface that has an area of A.
2. A force F pulls on a surface that has an area of A.

What is the pressure in these 2 scenarios?
​

If you do not know what pressure is or cannot answer that then:

Is the pressure positive or negative in each of the 2 scenerios?
​

First asked 1 April 2009
Now prove your assertion (that the Casimir effect is air pressure) by showing the the air pressure between 2 parallel plates exerts a pressure that varies as the fourth power of the distance betwen the plates (as shown experimentally).
For a genius like you this should be simple. But given your track record with questions I will timestamp this question.

I will add the outstanding questions that other posters have asked:

Asked 2 April 2009 (and many times before)

• What is your definition of pressure (citations please) that only allows pressure to be positive?
• What is the error in the derivation of the pressure of the Casimir effect that leads to the pressure being negative?
• And a bonus question: Why do scientists actually measure a negative pressure?
  

  Here's a paper measuring Casimir pressure. Note the sign of the result (see e.g. Figure 1), and the functional form (which shows that the pressure tends to minus infinity as the cavity shrinks - which in MM's world means the pressure outside must be +infinity).

 

[Tubbythin]

Look at the direction of the blue arrows and the relative sizes of each arrow.

I'm looking.

The "other things" that "exert (kinetic) pressure", do so to all sides of all plates at once. One side simply receives more QM force than the other. It is simply a subatomic kinetic energy exchange, with more particles running through the "vacuum" than we can possibly imagine, or possibly keep out.

Are you talking real or virtual particles here?

Guth's notion of "negative pressure in a vacuum" is nonsense.

Not at all. As everybody except you seems to understand the Wiki article tells us that for the parrallel conducting plates, the pressure is negative. It even links to a page which says:

Because Casimir force between conductors is attractive then the Casimir pressure in space between the conductors is negative.

I don't see how it could get any more clear cut or definitive than that.

There is always some form of "kinetic pressure" on all sides of both of those plates, even with no molecules in the chamber. The kinetic pressure comes from the carrier particles of the EM field rather than molecules, but for all intents and purposes, it is simply "kinetic pressure", just like molecular pressure.

Except that for a molecular gas using the ideal gas equation would be vaguely sensible, using it in this situation would be utterly stupid. Or, in other words, its absolutely nothing like any classical approximation of pressure.

The basic problem here is you folks do *not* understand what is *physically* occurring in the chamber.

The basic problem is you don't understand classical physics let alone the basics of quantum mechanics let alone something as complex as second quantization let alone something as counter-intuitive as the Casimir effect.

To you it's all just a math formula, and the minus sign is all that you understand.

Nope. We have a definition of pressure. You do not. You have hand-waving and sticking together random physics words and putting "kinetic" on the front of everything.

In reality however, there is no "negative force" or "negative pressure" in the chamber. There is just "pressure" and "force" on all sides of all the plates in virtually every Casimir experiment that has ever been done.

So why in your world does the pressure drop off with a⁴?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Another Falsification of Inflation.....

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16903-new-cosmic-map-reveals-colossal-structures.html

Enormous cosmic voids and giant concentrations of matter have been observed in a new galaxy survey, one of the biggest completed so far. One of the voids is so large that it is difficult to explain where it came from.

Called the Six Degree Field Galaxy Survey (6dFGS), the project scanned 41% of the sky, measuring positions and distances for 110,000 galaxies within 2 billion light years of Earth.

No previous survey has covered as much of the sky at such a distance. The Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS), which is based in the northern hemisphere, has probed about twice as far but covers only 23% of the sky.

A team led by Heath Jones of the Anglo-Australian Observatory in Epping, Australia, announced the completion of the survey on Friday. The project used the 1.2-metre UK Schmidt Telescope in Australia and as a result looked only at parts of the sky visible from the southern hemisphere.
Giant pileup

Scientists are still analysing the new map, but a few features stand out immediately. The biggest concentration of matter seen by the survey is a previously known giant pileup of galaxies called the Shapley supercluster, which lies about 600 million light years from Earth.

The survey also found some enormous voids – regions of space that are relatively empty, including one that is about 3.5 billion light years across.

"This is as big as I've ever seen," survey team member John Huchra of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics told New Scientist.

Another large void about 1 billion light years across was discovered previously.
Curiously large

In fact the newly found void is so large that it is difficult to fit into our present understanding of the universe on the largest scales. Computer simulations show that gravity causes galaxies and galaxy clusters to get closer together over time, with voids growing between the clusters.

But the finite time available since the big bang makes it difficult to explain a void as large as the one found in this survey (other researchers, however, say galaxy maps already hint at the existence of such large-scale structures).

"It's not easy to make voids that large in any of the current models of large scale structure formation," Huchra says.

 

[Michael Mozina]

And eveyone knows this. You miss the basic point that you can have air pressure and vacuum pressure. Just becaure there is matter in a vacuum does not mean that the vacuum fluctuations magically vanish.

Er, no, I didn't miss that point, *YOU* are missing this point. Even with *zero* atoms in a vacuum (something that never actually occurs in nature), there is still QM "pressure" applied to *every single side* of *every single plate*. Sooner or later you will come to grasp this point.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I disagree. Yes they are empirical experiments.

Sorry I missed this earlier by the way.

Observations are *not* empirical experiments. There is no "control mechanism", and no "experiment" actually occurring. We are "observing" something, and making "subjective interpretations (different ones)" from this uncontrolled observation.

Astronomical observations constitute valid tests of astronomical hypotheses, in exactly the same sense as an experiment in an organic chemistry lab.

I don't see how, since you can't hope to control distant events the way you might add chemicals to organic compounds in controlled tests on Earth.

In both cases there is an hypothesis to test, and the observations serve that purpose. In both cases criteria are established prior to the experiment, whereby either the verification or falsification of the hypothesis can be established. There is no difference between the data gained by astronomical observation to test astronomical hypotheses and the data gained in a controlled laboratory experiment to test a laboratory hypothesis.

But Tim, there is no 'control mechanisms' as it relates to events in deep space. All we can do is observe these events without any hope of "controlling" them. Even when gaping holes appear in current theory, that doesn't seem to get you to instantly abandon these ideas.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16903-new-cosmic-map-reveals-colossal-structures.html

This is also exactly true of everything you have had to say about Birkeland's experiments. You subjectively interpret that Birkeland's data are applicable to the sun and the solar wind.

No. In Birkeland's case he physically demonstrated a link between "current flow" and these events. There was not simply a mathematical presentation of the idea, but rather a PHYSICAL one. Compare and contrast that to Guth's magic inflation theory that fails every "test" and is then modified to postdict a better fit. This has been going on since day one by the way since Guth's original theory was falsified and later 'modified" to fit again.

There is no logical difference at all, none, between your theories based on Birkeland's observations and cosmological inflation. They are equally "subjective", as you have chosen to define the concept.

Boloney. I can show a physical link between electricity and plasma movement for under $30 at Walmart. You can't get inflation to do anything useful to anything else, and cost is irrelevant.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

[...]

This is also exactly true of everything you have had to say about Birkeland's experiments. You subjectively interpret that Birkeland's data are applicable to the sun and the solar wind.

No. In Birkeland's case he physically demonstrated a link between "current flow" and these events. There was not simply a mathematical presentation of the idea, but rather a PHYSICAL one. [...]

(bold added)

He did?

You mean you looked at some pictures, ignored the math, didn't do any calculations, and concluded that because some things seemed similar in the pretty pictures then they must be the same (qualitatively, of course)?

OK, so may I ask - again - where in the 994-page document does Birkeland have photographs taken in the soft x-ray band?

Oh, and are you ready to present your calculations of the pressure on the plates in the Casimir experiment yet?