Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[Michael Mozina]

Yes. We're all in denial. Along with all the major first year undergrad physics text books used at all the most prestigious university in the world. And all the lecturers at those Universities. And only Michael Mozina is correct. All this despite the fact that he wishes to use classical mechanics to describe an effect of second quantization. What is the world coming too.

Yet somehow the WIKI images and descriptions all talk about the QM effects as a "force" and all the drawings match Michael Mozina's description of "pressure" right down to the pretty little pictures.

 

[temporalillusion]

In the Casimir Effect article on wiki, which you agree with, where they are calculating the pressure, is the sign positive or negative?

You just said the pressure can only reach zero in a vacuum. Ok I make a zero pressure vacuum. Then I bring the plates together and the pressure is lower between them than the zero pressure everywhere else.

With respect to the pressure everywhere else, what is the pressure between the plates? Positive or negative?

The *pressure* in the chamber is directly related to the formula:

P=nRT/V

Could you please calculate the pressure between the plates due to virtual particles using this formula? Or the pressure on the outside of the plates due to virtual particles? It should match up with the calculations on the Wiki page, agreed?

Or at the very least, where are you going to get the values for n, R, T, and V? We'll assume an ideal vacuum to make it simpler.

EDIT: Or maybe this will clarify things.. If I had an ideal vacuum, and I had the whole thing in a Faraday cage so there was no stray EM, basically did everything possible so there was no outside interference, just the vacuum, the plates, and nothing else, would the Casimir Effect still manifest?

 

[Ziggurat]

Bull. Guth selected a *very specific set of circumstances* and criteria. He created a "vacuum" and gave it "negative pressure".

We're not to that point yet. We're still trying to work out what pressure means. Once we've established what pressure means, we can see if Guth is using it correctly or not, if the model he's proposing would produce negative pressure or not, and if the mechanism he's proposing is reasonable. But we aren't there. We need to establish what pressure means. And you haven't figured it out yet. You're stuck on the idea gas law, but that is not what pressure means. That is an approximation for calculating pressure from a gas only, it does not define pressure.

The only definition that I need for pressure is one that approximates the pressure of a vacuum, and the "best" such definition I have to work with would be an ideal gas law definition.

Except that the ideal gas law does not define pressure. How many times do you have to be told this? It is derived from definitions of pressure. Just as other formulas for pressure in other circumstances can be derived from the same definition of pressure. But you still don't know how to define pressure.

 

[Skwinty]

We need to establish what pressure means.

According to my physics text book:

The commonly held concept of pressure is invariably linked to the force, or exertion, that tends to make water squirt. More scientifically, pressure deals with forces that are distributed over an area

Mathematically, pressure is force per unit area or P=F/A

 

[Reality Check]

But the *NET PRESSURE IN THE CHAMBER* is consistently positive!

AND SUBTRACTED FROM THE EXPERIMENT.

It sounds to me like you're building another strawman instead of listening to my responses.

Ditto

Just what magic process enables you to know what the unlabeled BLUE lines in the diagram actually are?

There is nothing "magic" about studying QM.

How can you study QM whithout any knowledge of mathematics (as your postings make clear)?
But then it is obvious that your telepathic powers allow you to read the mind of the author of the diagram and find out what the unlabeled BLUE lines in the diagram actually are!

P.S. The Wiki article is quite clear that it is a second quantization effect of vacuum fluctuations and nothing to do with the kinetic energy of the carrier particles of the EM field (of which there is none between the plates).

Precisely (in terms of actual physics) what is the difference?

For a start it is fairly hard to have "carrier particles" for an EM field between the plates that does not exist.

 

[Dancing David]

The whole entire physical universe is thinly dispersed bit of idealized gas, dotted with material *structures* that keep in organized.

There you go again, the universe is not an idelized gas, it 'energy'. Some of it is idealized gas, some is lquid and some is solid, and some is even plasma.

But to say that the whole universe is an idealized gas, have you got any observations that support that.

Why then does quantum tunneling occur?

I didn't make up the definition of "pressure", it comes from any ordinary chemistry or physics definition of pressure. The only logical way to treat 'pressure' here is to begin with *at least* this much understanding of kinetic energy in motion. Even the best vacuums of Earth, and the best vacuums of space have atoms in them, even if they are separated by great distances. Even if we remove the kinetic energy of the atoms, from some arbitrary region of "space", the photons flowing through it produce "kinetic energy" as "positive pressure" at the level of QM.

No photons do not produce all the quantum fluctuations or virtual particles.

Where is your lab data for that?

Some forms of energy may produce virtual partciles, but are you sure that VP and quantum fluctuations require them?

You are over extending your classic model here.

The 'free vacum energy' is not carried by photons, it would not be a 'free vacum' if there were photons.

Duh.

It's going to have to 'accelerate" a system that resembles an ideal "plasma" with massive structures creating an organizing effect in some way. This is a reasonable and acceptable definition of "pressure" considering the makeup of this physical universe.

Except that the direction of the pressure determines the sign.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

What do you reckon is next? My bet is on Coulomb's law to describe the force of gravity between the Earth and the Sun. I can't see how that is any more wrong than using the ideal gas equation to describe the Casimir effect.

Not sure about that ...

... I reckon some reference to experiments Birkeland did, with terrella (terrellae?), that show a) that he (correctly) predicted the Casimir effect, b) it explains the acceleration of the solar wind, and c) the effect to be really (merely?) just an application of GR plus MHD.

 

[Ziggurat]

According to my physics text book

I've already given him multiple textbook definitions, and he still can't understand. I don't think giving him one more will change anything. Of course, this whole thread is arguably an exercise in futility in regards to MM.

 

[D'rok]

Another epic fail I see. Please tell us all why using an approximation, derived using classical mechanics, for a classical gas is appropriate for a quantum system of virtual photons?

Because it rocks?



Pardon me. Please carry on.

 

[GeeMack]

Yes. We're all in denial. Along with all the major first year undergrad physics text books used at all the most prestigious university in the world. And all the lecturers at those Universities. And only Michael Mozina is correct. All this despite the fact that he wishes to use classical mechanics to describe an effect of second quantization.

Finally you're catching on. Jesus H. Christ, took you long enough!

 

[Ziggurat]

Because it rocks?

I'm confused by the name, but you're right, that does rock.

 

[D'rok]

I'm confused by the name, but you're right, that does rock.

It's an approximation called "Classical Gas" derived by Mason Williams using classical mechanics.

(Makes about as much sense as the rest of this thread )

 

[Michael Mozina]

AND SUBTRACTED FROM THE EXPERIMENT.

That is the whole point! The "pressure" is not ZERO, it is *POSITIVE*. It cannot be negative, and even at the level of QM it is still a questions of *more VP's on the outside*, and less of them on the inside.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/3119

The conventional Casimir effect can be understood in terms of the radiation pressure exerted by electromagnetic plane waves in the quantum vacuum. Reflections of waves within the plates push them apart, while waves outside the plates push them together. The difference between the two is the Casimir force.

The difference between these two "forces" is visually depicted by the *LARGE ARROW* on the outside of the plates, and the "small" arrows between the plates. The difference between them is the Casimir effect.

See how the little blue arrows inside the plates is pointing *OUTWARD*? That "pressure" between the plates simply *decreases* (but does not go negative) as the plates get closer together. The quantum pressure on the outside *pushes* the plate together.

 

[Tubbythin]

Yet somehow the WIKI images and descriptions all talk about the QM effects as a "force" and all the drawings match Michael Mozina's description of "pressure" right down to the pretty little pictures.

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/44/Casimir_plates.svg/300px-Casimir_plates.svg.png[/qimg]

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/Translational_motion.gif[/qimg]

Look at the equation at the end of the section on Casimir's calculation and tell me what you see.
The fact that you're trying to apply an approximation of a classical gas to photons is just staggering. Absolutely mindbendingly stupid in fact.
Do you know what classical mechanics is? Do you know what relativistic mechanics is? Do you know when one is appropriate and when the other is appropriate?

 

[sol invictus]

Look at the equation at the end of the section on Casimir's calculation and tell me what you see.
The fact that you're trying to apply an approximation of a classical gas to photons is just staggering. Absolutely mindbendingly stupid in fact.
Do you know what classical mechanics is? Do you know what relativistic mechanics is? Do you know when one is appropriate and when the other is appropriate?

MM wants all pressures to be positive, is that it? So that Casimir force is due to the difference between a large positive pressure outside and a smaller one between the plates?

There's one teensy weensy little problem... the Casimir pressure goes to -infinity when the plates are close together. If that infinity is the difference of two positive terms, the pressure outside must be infinite.

It's not unrelated to his potential energy stupidity... if you want all gravitational potentials to be positive, you have to add +infinity to everything (since the potential as it's properly defined goes to -infinity at a point mass or black hole horizon).

 

[Tubbythin]

MM...
Please tell us the classical momentum of a particle of mass m and velocity v. Then please tell us the momentum of a photon of energy E.

 

[Michael Mozina]

MM wants all pressures to be positive, is that it? So that Casimir force is due to the difference between a large positive pressure outside and a smaller one between the plates?

Yep. Take a gander once at Boyer's experiments with a spherical shell. What happened and why?

There's one teensy weensy little problem... the Casimir pressure goes to -infinity when the plates are close together. If that infinity is the difference of two positive terms, the pressure outside must be infinite.

No, it goes to approximately 1 atmosphere.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Look at the equation at the end of the section on Casimir's calculation and tell me what you see.
The fact that you're trying to apply an approximation of a classical gas to photons is just staggering. Absolutely mindbendingly stupid in fact.
Do you know what classical mechanics is? Do you know what relativistic mechanics is? Do you know when one is appropriate and when the other is appropriate?

You folks are utterly and completely lost when it comes to actual physics, QM or anything related to actual "particles" at the subatomic level. Why did Boyer experience *repulsion* in his experiments with a sphere in 1968?

 

[Tubbythin]

You folks are utterly and completely lost when it comes to actual physics, QM or anything related to actual "particles" at the subatomic level. Why did Boyer experience *repulsion* in his experiments with a sphere in 1968?

Ahem. I'm not the one trying to use the ideal gas equation to describe the pressure exerted by virtual photons.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Ahem. I'm not the one trying to use the ideal gas equation to describe the pressure exerted by virtual photons.

I'm not doing anything of the sort. I simply used the ideal gas law description of pressure to demonstrate the asymptote for pressure in a vacuum is 0, not negative infinity.

The QM side is still "positive pressure" as you will eventually figure out as I stuff Boyer's experiments down your throat for a week if necessary.