Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[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.

And sol talked about your voids many many pages ago.

Is this your usual tactic; can't answer questions so go away for a while and then come back, hand wave some more hoping no one notices that you've dodged every direct request (#1915 for example) for real supporting information?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

[...]

Boloney. I can show a physical link between electricity and plasma movement for under $30 at Walmart. [...]

Actually, you can't.

Why?

Because, to turn up the contrast, "electricity" and "plasma" are concepts that have meaning only in the quantitative world of science ... and you have amply demonstrated that the quantitative revolution has passed you by, and so your understanding of these words, as precise technical terms, is about on a par with Alex's.

 

[Reality Check]

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.

And the QM presuure is unequal resulting in an attractive and thus negative net force betwen the plates.

Sooner or later you will come to grasp this point.

 

[Reality Check]

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.

Let say we make a controlled experiment. We then make "subjective interpretations (different ones)" from this controlled experiment. What is the difference between this process and the same process from an observation? Is it that the experiments can be repeated (but observations can be repeated)?

The only difference that I can see is the controlled/uncontrolled issue. In that case should Kepler have disregarded the observations of the elliptical nature of the orbits of planets because these were uncontrolled experiments?

You need to learn what "empirical" means. Observations are not experiments (that is obvious!) but they are as empirical as experiments.

Maybe you can tell us where "control mechanism" appears in the following definitions and why they include observations:
Empirical (Wikipedia)

The word empirical denotes information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment[1], as opposed to theoretical. A central concept in science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses. It is usually differentiated from the philosophic usage of empiricism by the use of the adjective "empirical" or the adverb "empirically." "Empirical" as an adjective or adverb is used in conjunction with both the natural and social sciences, and refers to the use of working hypotheses that are testable using observation or experiment. In this sense of the word, scientific statements are subject to and derived from our experiences or observations. Empirical data are data that are produced by experiment or observation.

Merriam-Webster
1 : originating in or based on observation or experience <empirical data>
2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory <an empirical basis for the theory>
3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment <empirical laws>
4 : of or relating to empiricism

 

[Michael Mozina]

And the QM presuure is unequal resulting in an attractive and thus negative net force betwen the plates.

Sooner or later you will come to grasp this point.

You are still confusing the concept of "greater" pressure one one side and "less" pressure on the other with idea of "negative pressure". You'll get it sooner or later.

 

[Reality Check]

You are still confusing the concept of "greater" pressure one one side and "less" pressure on the other with idea of "negative pressure". You'll get it sooner or later.

The negative part of negative pressure is not to do with the greater pressure on one side versus the less pressure on the other side. It is to do with the fact the the net force is attractive; attractive forces are negative (FYI: repulsive forces are positive) and so the net pressure is negative according to the definition of pressure.

You'll get it sooner or later.

 

[Michael Mozina]

(bold added)

He did?

Yes, he did. Did you bother reading his work, or are you still "winging" it from a place of complete ignorance?

You mean you looked at some pictures,

Yes, in science that is called "observation".

ignored the math,

I only "ignored" the math the *first* time through he work. I went back and went through it a second time. I doubt you've been through it even once.

didn't do any calculations,

I didn't, or *he* didn't?

and concluded that because some things seemed similar in the pretty pictures then they must be the same (qualitatively, of course)?

I see that "electricity" is a viable motive force when it comes to explaining sustained spherical emissions (both positive and negative) from a sphere in a vacuum. I'm interested in *more than* a few calculations, rather I'm interested in the *physical proof of concept* that he performed. That's the part of "science" that you folks forgot how to do.

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

Nowhere to my knowledge. Are you suggesting that coronal loops do not show up in other wavelengths other than x-rays? What does that have to do with my solar wind comment to Tim anyway?

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

When you are going to look *beyond a math formula* and embrace the *physical process* that your math formulas attempt to describe?

None of the little blue arrows point "inward" toward the other place DRD. The world of actual *physics* is something that you seem to have completely forgotten. There is "more" pressure on one side of the plates and "less" pressure on the other side of the plate, but there is no justification for claiming there is "negative pressure" anywhere inside the chamber. Most of these 'experiments' are not even done in a "near vacuum", let alone a "pure vacuum" at zero degrees Kelvin. There is no way to achieve "negative" pressure in a vacuum. We might be able to achieve "some little amount of" pressure in a vacuum, but it will always be "greater than zero" because there is always "greater than zero" amount of kinetic energy flowing through the system. Guth's notion of "negative pressure in a vacuum" is pure delusion based on a physical impossibility. There was no "free lunch", and there was never a "net zero" amount of energy.

I notice you've not touched any of my questions DRD. Why not?

What was "physical size" of the "near singularity" thingy prior to "whatever you personally believed did it", and what did it, and how did it do it? I love how you reject inflation, ignore the ramifications of that rejection and continue to claim Lambda-CDM theory is somehow "better than" any other theory. How so?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Let say we make a controlled experiment. We then make "subjective interpretations (different ones)" from this controlled experiment. What is the difference between this process and the same process from an observation? Is it that the experiments can be repeated (but observations can be repeated)?

Let's say that you don't believe me that "electricity" is required to generate "Birkeland currents". In Birkeland's experiments we can physically "turn off" the electricity to verify my claim. In that way we can remove any "subjective interpretation' from the process based on "Trial and error" if necessary to resolve our subjective differences.

How do we do that without any "control mechanisms"? If someone claims "redshift if caused by expansion of space", how might we physically test this idea using a control mechanism?

 

[Reality Check]

Outstanding questions for MM from me:

Originally Posted by Reality Check
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?
​

Originally Posted by Reality Check
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?
  Originally Posted by 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).
  

 

[Michael Mozina]

The negative part of negative pressure is not to do with the greater pressure on one side versus the less pressure on the other side.

That is however what makes that plates move toward one another.

It is to do with the fact the the net force is attractive;

That depends on the "geometry". Why?

 

[Reality Check]

Let's say that you don't believe me that "electricity" is required to generate "Birkeland currents". In Birkeland's experiments we can physically "turn off" the electricity to verify my claim. In that way we can remove any "subjective interpretation' from the process based on "Trial and error" if necessary to resolve our subjective differences.

How do we do that without any "control mechanisms"? If someone claims "redshift if caused by expansion of space", how might we physically test this idea using a control mechanism?

So what?
We can also observe the 2 situations of no electrical current and an electrical current. This will also remove any "subjective interpretation".

 

[Reality Check]

That is however what makes that plates move toward one another.

That is what "attractive" means.

That depends on the "geometry". Why?

No it does not. Why do you think that? And why is geometry in quotes?

 

[edd]

Perhaps MM might want to consider the nature of what those green waves actually are. They're quantum mechanical fluctuations.

MM - have you considered that an electrostatic attraction is mediated by virtual photon exchange? How do you think you can have something emitted by one particle and absorbed by another and have an attractive force result?

Virtual particles and quantum mechanical effects do not work like your classical picture of little billiard balls bouncing off walls - like in your standard kinetic theory of gases. Life is very different when these effects are at work.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/virtual_particles.html

The Casimir effect is a quantum effect - and as such I'm afraid that nature is simply not playing by your rules.

 

[temporalillusion]

That is however what makes that plates move toward one another.

The plates aren't moving. Do you understand what pressure is?

 

[GeeMack]

Is this your usual tactic; can't answer questions so go away for a while and then come back, hand wave some more hoping no one notices that you've dodged every direct request (#1915 for example) for real supporting information?

Uh, as the Magic 8-Ball on the shelf would say, "Yes, Definitely."

 

[Michael Mozina]

So what?
We can also observe the 2 situations of no electrical current and an electrical current. This will also remove any "subjective interpretation".

Er, how might you do that? I look at the solar atmosphere and I see 'electrical current' lighting up the sky. You seem "observe" the same thing and chalk it up to something else. Now what? How do we remove any room for "subjectivity" as it relates to solar atmospheric activity? Birkeland created "discharges" around a sphere in a vacuum. I don't suppose you've all done that with "magnetic reconnection", or are we in agreement that "magnetic reconnection" and "circuit reconnection" are the same concept?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Perhaps MM might want to consider the nature of what those green waves actually are. They're quantum mechanical fluctuations.

Yes, due to preexisting "energy" flowing through the system. There is no "space" that is not filled with flowing energy in some form or another. Even "deep space" contains atoms, electrons, photons, neutrinos, etc. There is no way to achieve a "zero" amount of energy in a positive energy state universe.

MM - have you considered that an electrostatic attraction is mediated by virtual photon exchange?

I think we've all agree that the carrier particle of the EM field is doing the work.

How do you think you can have something emitted by one particle and absorbed by another and have an attractive force result?

I think you've misunderstood my point. The "attractive force" as you are calling it is simply due to a "low pressure" zone between the plates, and the "pressure" is coming from the other side of the plate.

Virtual particles and quantum mechanical effects do not work like your classical picture of little billiard balls bouncing off walls - like in your standard kinetic theory of gases. Life is very different when these effects are at work.

Plasma is also very "different" than a "gas", but many of the same basic kinetic principles still apply. It's just that we must also account for the electromagnetic factors and influences as well as the pure kinetic energy.

The Casimir effect is a quantum effect - and as such I'm afraid that nature is simply not playing by your rules.

Actually nature plays by it's own physical rules and it "pushes" the plates together due to the arrangement of "high pressure" and "low pressure" zones around the plates. The blue arrow "pressure" pushing the plates together is simply "greater than" the little blue "pressure" arrows pushing them apart. There's nothing particularly mysterious going on here, and it has nothing to do with "negative pressure in a vacuum".

 

[Reality Check]

Er, how might you do that? I look at the solar atmosphere and I see 'electrical current' lighting up the sky. You seem "observe" the same thing and chalk it up to something else. Now what? How do we remove any room for "subjectivity" as it relates to solar atmospheric activity? Birkeland created "discharges" around a sphere in a vacuum. I don't suppose you've all done that with "magnetic reconnection", or are we in agreement that "magnetic reconnection" and "circuit reconnection" are the same concept?

Magnetic reconnection is the standard term for the thing that you want to call "circuit reconnection" for some weird reason.

P.S.
Outstanding questions for MM from me:

Originally Posted by Reality Check
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?
​

Originally Posted by Reality Check
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?
  Originally Posted by 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).
  

 

[Tim Thompson]

Hopeless ... Hopeless

Birkeland created "discharges" around a sphere in a vacuum. I don't suppose you've all done that with "magnetic reconnection", ...

Of course we have, as you should already know (i.e., comments on Magnetic Reconnection). But you have the peculiar habit of demanding "controlled laboratory experiments", and then summarily rejecting any experiment that does not agree with your own pre-conceived ideas, just as you have already rejected all of the controlled laboratory observations of magnetic reconnection. Not for any good reason, but just because you don't like them.

Birkeland's experiments are irrelevant. They have nothing at all to do with the central issue, and they certainly have nothing at all to do with the sun. They don't reproduce any of the physical characteristics of the sun, and the pictures you post don't even look like the sun, despite your strange claims that they do (in violation of the evidence of our own eyes).

You have in fact not one single "controlled laboratory experiment" of any kind, ever performed by anyone, anywhere, to objectively support anything you have ever said about the sun. We all know it. You are the only one so blind you can't see that even your own "experiments" are useless.

All you can do is subjectively and arbitrarily assume (for no good physical reason at all) that all of these experiments somehow magically apply to the sun. That's it. That's all you have. Everybody (and I mean everybody) except you can see it clear as a bell.

... or are we in agreement that "magnetic reconnection" and "circuit reconnection" are the same concept?

Absolutely not. It's the magnetic field that reconnects, and that forces any current flows to change, or "reconnect" if you wish. The field changes first, and then the currents follow. It would be the other way around if it was really "circuit reconnection". But since you summarily and arbitrarily reject all of the controlled laboratory experiments which prove magnetic reconnection beyond a shadow of a doubt, it's no surprise that you must have "circuit reconnection" instead.

 

[edd]

Yes, due to preexisting "energy" flowing through the system. There is no "space" that is not filled with flowing energy in some form or another. Even "deep space" contains atoms, electrons, photons, neutrinos, etc. There is no way to achieve a "zero" amount of energy in a positive energy state universe.

No, the vacuum fluctuations aren't related to some kind of failure to remove background radiation, neutrinos or other real matter.

As for your other points, I'll deal with them a bit later. I'm nearer your position than perhaps most - there's a reason I've not been arguing things from the perspective of which way arrows are pointing in wikipedia diagrams. I do however quite firmly hold the opinion that in the Casimir effect the pressure is negative.