Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tubbythin said:
We have, the Casimir effect.
Click to expand...

What you have is a *force* of nature, that *pushes* two plates together, not a "negative pressure environment". I finally realized yesterday where this whole problem starts. Your side does *not* comprehend the difference between force and pressure. In the Casimir experiments, the chamber is *always* positively pressurized. Even a "vacuum" state is not quite a "zero" pressure, but has a positive number of atoms and pressure in the chamber due to the presence of these atoms. What you have is a *force* (a QM force) that *pushes* the two plates together *in spite of the pressure in the chamber*. The analogy of two magnets in a chamber is very similar. Yes, they will experience the force of magnetic attraction. No, there is no "negative pressure" between the two magnets.

Guth needs "negative pressure" out of a vacuum in order for his theory to fly, and it cannot fly because that is a physical impossibility. There could of course be a "force" of some kind that has some effect on the expansion, but it has nothing to do with "negative pressure in a vacuum".
 
DeiRenDopa said:
And do BECs (Bose-Einstein condensates) behave like (ordinary) fluids (i.e. diagonal stress tensor)?
Click to expand...

Under "normal" conditions , superfluids should behave exactly like ordinary fluids in terms of the stress tensors. Where they stand out most obviously is when you have flow, since they're zero viscosity and quantized vorticity - that should remain the same even in a field, though the field might change critical values (flow, temperature, etc) at which the fluid will go normal. In a field, though, other funny things may happen (ie, Meisner effect in superconductors, which are basically superfluid electrons). And if you have a vortex lattice, I imagine that might be able to give the stress tensor different values for different directions, but I suspect you still wouldn't get off-diagonal terms.

But this is speculation on my part, so don't make a machine that depends on this being correct and will blow up and kill your lab assistant if I'm wrong. Unless you don't like your lab assistant. But in that case, I'd recommend building a machine that depends upon MM being right to not kill the poor sap.
 
Michael Mozina said:
I finally realized yesterday where this whole problem starts. Your side does *not* comprehend the difference between force and pressure.
Click to expand...

Still waiting for a response from you about the definition of pressure. You keep claiming that other people are confusing the two, but you haven't given us your definition. You've tried to change my definition into a form that is harder to work with (for reasons that still make no sense to me and which you haven't explained), but you haven't actually said whether or not you accept the definition I gave. So you can keep saying that we're confusing the two, but I've given a definition of pressure (and a completely standard one at that, and one which is distinct from force), and you haven't. I don't think I'm on the side that's confused about it.
 
Ziggurat said:
Still waiting for a response from you about the definition of pressure. You keep claiming that other people are confusing the two, but you haven't given us your definition. You've tried to change my definition into a form that is harder to work with (for reasons that still make no sense to me and which you haven't explained),
Click to expand...

I did explain it to you. My definition keeps you from trying to confuse pressure and force, whereas your definition easily allows for such confusion.

This confusion is obvious in the Casimir example where there is *positive pressure* in the chamber, and also a QM force that pushes the plates together. It is analogous to a magnetic field that attracts two magnets in a positive pressure environment.

Guth's theory *requires* a "negative pressure" from a "vacuum". That is a physical impossibility. The notion of an external force might be fine, but the notion of a "negative pressure in a vacuum", is not.
 
Michael Mozina said:
I did explain it to you. My definition keeps you from trying to confuse pressure and force, whereas your definition easily allows for such confusion.
Click to expand...

It does nothing of the sort. They're exactly the same if you use relativistic mass, except yours is harder to use (nobody calculates relativistic mass for a gas at room temperature, for example). And if you use invariant mass, then yours is simply wrong. And considering that the units on my equation are units of pressure, I have no idea why you think it can possibly be confused for force.

So once again: how do you define pressure? Screw how you'd change my definition, and forget negative pressure for a moment. Just consider a gas at positive pressure. How do you define the pressure it's at? I've given my definition: what's yours? I know it's not what you gave me earlier - nobody uses relativity to define something as everyday as pressure. If you can't write an equation for it, then explain it in words.
 
DeiRenDopa said:
For example, it seems, in the MM view, that everyone who has studied this general topic cannot be agnostic as it were, they must take a stance one way or the other.
Click to expand...

This is an utterly false statement by the way.

As it relates to Lambda-CDM theory, I simply "lack belief" in the idea. You could interpret this statement as "strong" atheism, or "weak atheism".

The difference between us is that while you may lack belief in EU theory, you persecute that specific theory to the point of not allowing it to be discussed openly and fully on websites where you moderate. On the other hand, you do allow for other "mainstream" beliefs to be discussed without any time limits. Whereas I don't mind you discussing Lambda-CDM theory or other solar theories openly in the classroom and on the internet, you do not afford me the same courtesy. It is you that are not acting as an agnostic, but rather as a "true believer" who is intent on protecting the status quo at all costs, including but not limited to virtual execution of all persistent heresy.
 
Michael Mozina said:
And this would be another great example of "false advertising". GR theory is a theory about the *attractive* curvature of gravity. BBT is dependent upon inflation and dark energy, neither of which are technically even related to GR, they are just stuffed into a GR formula. If there was truth in advertising, you wouldn't be able to get away with claiming that the underpinning of BBT is GR. It's not.
Click to expand...

You claim to understand General Relativity and attempt to critique subsequent models and theories that are based on GR. Then you present a description of GR as quoted:

"GR theory is a theory about the *attractive* curvature of gravity. "

Attractive curvature of gravity???

Michael, the reason folks have a hard time taking anything you say seriously is due to descriptions like this. If you understood GR, you might realize how horribly wrong your description is. GR has nothing to do with attraction nor does it describe a "curvature of gravity".

I don't believe any of the ten terms in the EFE's address an attractive force. There is no curvature of gravity. Curvature is a geometrical description of Newtonian gravity... curvature IS gravity.

It is painfully clear that you don't understand the things you wish to critique. This makes your critiques irrelevant.

Same with your description of the Casimir effect. The evacuated chambers they use have nothing to do with the quantum vacuum flucuations they are measuring. The laboratory vacuum is for the simple purpose of minimizing discrepancies in the actual experiment.
 
Michael Mozina said:
DeiRenDopa said:
We may consider the latter to be something like the universality of QED, and there are certainly lots and lots and lots of tests done (and, no doubt many more that could be done) that show the wide ranging and deep consistency associated with an assumption of universality of QED ... but in some sense this is no different than saying that the true theoretical underpinning of the BBT is GR.
Click to expand...
And this would be another great example of "false advertising". GR theory is a theory about the *attractive* curvature of gravity. BBT is dependent upon inflation and dark energy, neither of which are technically even related to GR, they are just stuffed into a GR formula. If there was truth in advertising, you wouldn't be able to get away with claiming that the underpinning of BBT is GR. It's not.
Click to expand...
Well, let's following the trail of breadcrumbs to see how we got here, shall we?

Way back when, Skwinty wrote (extract):
If the interpreted cause of redshift was incorrect or Hubble made some mistakes in his empirical measurements.

The reason I ask is:

The expansion of space, which is the predominant interpretation of cosmological redshift, is the foundation of the BBT, specifically when running time in reverse.

Or, am I misunderstanding the issue?
Click to expand...

To which I replied (extract):

You are, in one respect.

The CMB, the primordial abundance of light nuclides, and large-scale structure are just as much "foundation of the BBT" as the Hubble relationship. And, as si has noted, the one thing which ties this all together is GR.

The true theoretical underpinning of the BBT is GR.

And that is the reason why, when all is said and done, that what "many are trying to prove" is nothing other than a falsification of GR (or a dramatic revision of it).

Once you grasp this you can easily see why PC (as defined by Lerner, for example) is the very definition of scientific woo.
Click to expand...


Then, upon reflection, I added this, in a later post:

Upon reflection, I think this is only partly right ...

In terms of volume of data, the overwhelming source of observations used to test cosmological models/concepts/etc is the detection of photons (or, if you prefer, electromagnetic radiation).

The detections ('observations') are analysed within a framework that includes two vital assumptions: some form of a Copernican principle (crudely, we are not in a special place in the universe), and that photons are photons are photons. The two are not independent, but are also not identical (I think).

We may consider the latter to be something like the universality of QED, and there are certainly lots and lots and lots of tests done (and, no doubt many more that could be done) that show the wide ranging and deep consistency associated with an assumption of universality of QED ... but in some sense this is no different than saying that the true theoretical underpinning of the BBT is GR.

One implication that I got to thinking: to what extent are contemporary cosmological models (concepts, ideas) bolstered by observations other than those which are detection of photons?

At first, I couldn't think of any, but then I came up with quite a few; here's an interim list (in shorthand):

* Olbers' paradox in neutrinos (the Sun is the only observed extraterrestrial source of neutrinos - within selected energy bands and neutrino types/flavours - therefore ...)

* the cosmic ray energy spectrum and composition (this not only corroborates much of the photon-detection based observations, but also very likely sets some interesting, and possibly quite strong, constraints on QED beyond the solar system)

* the UHECR anisotropies (so far only the first Auger results, and so still rather tentative, but potentially very powerful)

* the elemental and isotopic composition of interstellar dust grains (may not say much about cosmology, but does provide independent support for some aspects of photon-based observations)

* something about the (so far) null detections from various gravitational wave radiation detectors (I'm not sure what these would mean if you set aside all photon-based observations as potentially subject to massive, subtle, etc systematics).

Maybe I should start a new thread on this ...
Click to expand...
So ...

... within the context of what Skwinty wrote, my comments are just fine.

However, when you dig deeper you find cosmological models with (some kind of) inflation and lambda have greater explanatory and predictive power than those without them ... but they are still pretty darn good models.

OTOH, take away GR and the cosmological models are close to useless (in terms of being able to account for existing observations and make predictions about what will be found when new ones come in).

Take away QED, and there are, effectively, no observations to explain.

Now I don't expect that will make it any clearer to you, MM (for reasons that have been discussed at some length), but perhaps it might to some other readers.
 
derekmcd said:
You claim to understand General Relativity and attempt to critique subsequent models and theories that are based on GR. Then you present a description of GR as quoted:

"GR theory is a theory about the *attractive* curvature of gravity. "

Attractive curvature of gravity???

Michael, the reason folks have a hard time taking anything you say seriously is due to descriptions like this.
Click to expand...

It's hard to take you seriously when you nitpick my words and ignore the whole point entirely. Gravity has the effect of *attraction* between two bodies of mass. Lambda-CDM theory has "gravity" doing *repulsive* tricks.

Same with your description of the Casimir effect. The evacuated chambers they use have nothing to do with the quantum vacuum flucuations they are measuring. The laboratory vacuum is for the simple purpose of minimizing discrepancies in the actual experiment.
Click to expand...

All that is true Derek. Yesterday I finally realized the problem. Your side has not acknowledged and will not acknowledge the difference between pressure and force. Like the two magnetic analogy, a "force" at the level of QM is pushing the plates together or causing acceleration between the magnets, and yet there is always "positive pressure" in the chamber at all times.

Guth's theory requires 'negative pressure' from a "vacuum". That is a physical impossibility. There could be some other force of nature involved in this expansion process, but it cannot possibly be related to "negative pressure in a vacuum".
 
Michael Mozina said:
DeiRenDopa said:
I think it's accurate to say that for MM a serious component of cosmology has to do with (personal) beliefs, in a manner similar to religious or political beliefs.
Click to expand...
Er, no. I simply note the difference between a "faith based" religion and empirical science. Inflation is a "faith based" belief system.
Click to expand...
LWRRc

For example, it seems, in the MM view, that everyone who has studied this general topic cannot be agnostic as it were, they must take a stance one way or the other.
Click to expand...
If you weren't over there at BAUT holding regular witch trials, insisting on *not* discussing EU ideas, and insisting that only your *religion* has merit, then maybe your statements would not ring nearly as hollow as they do. Since you folks go out of your way to burn all your heretics at the stake and virtually execute the most vocal critics, your feign of agnosticism" is utterly absurd. You're a "believer" to the point of participating in (in your case overseeing) the virtual execution of all dissent. The Lambda-religion is not full of agnostics, it's full of hard core followers that attack any and all dissenters, and who refuse to allow other belief systems to even be discussed openly and fairly. Every competing theory has to be judged based on your own preferred standards and observations. Even though you personally don't believe in inflation, somehow any competing theory has to be "just as good" as your theories in ways that you personally decide, "or else". You impose 30 days time limits on all topic *except your own religion*.
Click to expand...
My goodness, where did this come from?!?

IIRC, si posted a succinct response to something like this that you wrote earlier, didn't he?

In any case, how you arrived at the conclusion that the BAUT forum has any impact on how cosmology is actually done, I do not know.

Whatever happened to publishing papers in relevant peer-reviewed journals?

If you want to get increased acceptance of any particular theory or model, in cosmology, shouldn't you be writing papers and submitting them to ApJ for publication (for example)?

Make no mistake about it, Lambda theory is a "religion". It's core tenets are based on "faith", not on empirical science. It's followers do not allow for, nor condone dissent. If you get out of line, you get virtually executed on the internet, and we can only assume it's worse in person when your job and livelihood are on the line .
Click to expand...
Huh? :confused:

You're here, in the JREF Forum, attacking contemporary cosmological models, aren't you? And promoting "EU/PC theory", aren't you? And didn't Z write a great many posts, here in this section of the JREF Forum, on similar topics?

Don't those two sets of facts show - empirically - that your claims are wrong?
 
DeiRenDopa said:
However, when you dig deeper you find cosmological models with (some kind of) inflation and lambda have greater explanatory and predictive power than those without them ... but they are still pretty darn good models.
Click to expand...

First of all, such theories have no "predictive" value. Guth "postidicted" the so called "properties" of inflation so he could post-fit the observation in question. Calling it "predictive" is silly because nothing new was "predicted".

Birkelands empirical experiments about aurora "predicted" high speed solar wind. They "predicted' high energy discharges in the solar atmosphere. They 'predicted' a whole host of things that "surprised" Birkeland during his experimentation process with *real* forces of nature, in *real* experiments.

Guth simply 'made up' inflation and postdicted the whole thing to fit, right down to solving his "missing monopole problem". Nothing new was actually "predicted" based on physical experimentation.

OTOH, take away GR and the cosmological models are close to useless (in terms of being able to account for existing observations and make predictions about what will be found when new ones come in).
Click to expand...

So maybe you'll have to include MHD theory and look *beyond simply gravity* for a solution?

Take away QED, and there are, effectively, no observations to explain.
Click to expand...

I don't expect you to understand me any better, but QED in terms of a mathematical proof based on a *known force of nature* is just fine by me. When you start trying to apply this logic to elves and pixies however, it's not actually QED anymore.
 
DeiRenDopa said:
You're here, in the JREF Forum, attacking contemporary cosmological models, aren't you? And promoting "EU/PC theory", aren't you? And didn't Z write a great many posts, here in this section of the JREF Forum, on similar topics?

Don't those two sets of facts show - empirically - that your claims are wrong?
Click to expand...

What this demonstrates is that fortunately there *are* places of integrity on the internet where free speech can still be heard. The fact that many astronomy forums, particularly those on which you moderate do not enjoy this level of free speech demonstrates the dark side of your religion. I have no need to virtually silence you even while I openly criticize Lambda theory, whereas you have been involved in virtually executing me on more than one occasion. Talk about hypocrisy.
 
Michael Mozina said:
It's hard to take you seriously when you nitpick my words and ignore the whole point entirely. Gravity has the effect of *attraction* between two bodies of mass. Lambda-CDM theory has "gravity" doing *repulsive* tricks.
Click to expand...
That misses half of what GR has to say - especially in the context of systems containing something like dark energy. You're quite literally ignoring sources of gravity if you believe it's just about masses attracting.

You might have difficulty believing the evidence for negative pressures, but the gravitational effect of them should they exist and should GR be true is quite straightforward to determine.
 
edd said:
You might have difficulty believing the evidence for negative pressures,
Click to expand...

He's got difficulty believing that even in the case of liquids at negative pressure, where the experiments are easy to perform and the data trivial to interpret. In fact, I think he probably has some rather confused notion about what pressure means, and what it means for it to be negative at all.
 
Ziggurat said:
He's got difficulty believing that even in the case of liquids at negative pressure, where the experiments are easy to perform and the data trivial to interpret. In fact, I think he probably has some rather confused notion about what pressure means, and what it means for it to be negative at all.
Click to expand...

Yes, well if he has difficulty believing some straightforward stuff there's only so much one can do.
 
Michael Mozina said:
First of all, such theories have no "predictive" value. Guth "postidicted" the so called "properties" of inflation so he could post-fit the observation in question. Calling it "predictive" is silly because nothing new was "predicted".
Click to expand...

You seem to have no comprehension of how science is done...
Observation is made that needs explaining.
Devise/construct a theory that explains these effects.
Make predictions with this theory.
Test these predictions by experiment or observation to see whether they match reality.

This is exactly what has happened with inflation.
 
Michael Mozina said:
What this demonstrates is that fortunately there *are* places of integrity on the internet where free speech can still be heard. The fact that many astronomy forums, particularly those on which you moderate do not enjoy this level of free speech demonstrates the dark side of your religion. I have no need to virtually silence you even while I openly criticize Lambda theory, whereas you have been involved in virtually executing me on more than one occasion. Talk about hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

My ironometer is about to blow. Michael Mozina, the man behind the bare faced lie:

Lambda-CDM theory is just the opposite. It begins with a prophetic premise. "The universe was created on such and such a date......
Click to expand...

wants to discuss integrity? Fantastic
 
Michael Mozina said:
What you have is a *force* of nature, that *pushes* two plates together, not a "negative pressure environment". I finally realized yesterday where this whole problem starts. Your side does *not* comprehend the difference between force and pressure.
Click to expand...

Hmm. I think pretty much everybody would disagree with you there. I think pretty much everybody would agree the problem is mostly that you don't seem to understand virtually anything about physics at all.
 
edd said:
That misses half of what GR has to say - especially in the context of systems containing something like dark energy.
Click to expand...

Even if we assume that something is driving an acceleration process, why would you believe that automatically has something to do with "gravity"?

You might have difficulty believing the evidence for negative pressures, but the gravitational effect of them should they exist and should GR be true is quite straightforward to determine.
Click to expand...

Despite claims to the contrary, there has been no evidence presented of "negative pressure". The Casimir effect is taking place in a "positive pressure" chamber. What we observe is "force" from the level of QM "pushing" the plates together in a positive pressure environment.

The fluid in a chamber scenario was an interesting analogy, but in that case there was no "negative pressure", just "external force" being applied to the bonds of the liquid until they break. Since a vacuum is not a liquid it's also an inapplicable analogy.

A "negative pressure" in a "vacuum" is physically impossible. It might "work out" on paper in a math formula mind you, but if we try to recreate such a thing in the real world, we run out of atoms and particles in the vacuum chamber but then how do we get to "negative pressure"?

Guth's theory specifically requires something that is physically impossible. While an external "force" might be a reasonable possibility, the expansion process cannot possibly be related to "negative pressure" in a "vacuum". That is not a physical possibility. A *perfect* (one we could never create) vacuum would simply have no kinetic energy in the form of atoms or QM. The pressure can never become "negative", only "positive" with an asymptote at zero pressure as we achieve zero particles (atoms/subatomic) in the chamber.
 
Tubbythin said:
Hmm. I think pretty much everybody would disagree with you there. I think pretty much everybody would agree the problem is mostly that you don't seem to understand virtually anything about physics at all.
Click to expand...

I clearly understand the difference between 'pressure' and force, which is obviously something you do not understand. The "pressure" in the Casimir experiment is always positive, and the "force" that makes the plates come together is not the same, nor is it related to the "pressure" in the chamber. When you finally acknowledge this distinction, *then* I won't spit coffee out of my nose in pure disbelief when you try to lecture me about physics. :)
 
Michael Mozina said:
Even if we assume that something is driving an acceleration process, why would you believe that automatically has something to do with "gravity"?
Click to expand...
Because it operates on cosmological scales. No other forces do that (despite what you'll inevitably claim about electromagnetism).

If you want to postulate another force to do it go ahead, but it'd better result in a theory more strongly predictive than one based solely on GR.
 
Ziggurat said:
He's got difficulty believing that even in the case of liquids at negative pressure, where the experiments are easy to perform and the data trivial to interpret. In fact, I think he probably has some rather confused notion about what pressure means, and what it means for it to be negative at all.
Click to expand...

The atomic bonds of your liquid are simply being "stressed" by the "force" of the piston. It is also an entirely inapplicable analogy since a vacuum is not a liquid and there are no "bonds" to "stress". You are simply mixing and matching analogies that are not even similar ideas.
 
Michael Mozina said:
The fluid in a chamber scenario was an interesting analogy, but in that case there was no "negative pressure", just "external force" being applied to the bonds of the liquid until they break.
Click to expand...

No. This is not an analogy for negative pressure, it is negative pressure. Once again: what exactly do you think pressure is? I keep asking you this, and you keep ignoring it. I have to conclude that you don't really know.
 
edd said:
Because it operates on cosmological scales. No other forces do that (despite what you'll inevitably claim about electromagnetism).
Click to expand...

What makes you believe that gravity operates on scales larger than the EM field when the EM field is something like 39 OOM's more powerful than gravity?

If you want to postulate another force to do it go ahead, but it'd better result in a theory more strongly predictive than one based solely on GR.
Click to expand...

That is why I am attracted to Birkeland's work and EU theory in general. It has "predictive value" beyond GR because it assumes that more than just GR is at work in our solar system and in our universe. I see evidence that many of Birkeland's real "predictions" proved themselves to be useful and applicable in space. I'm simply adding MHD theory to GR Einstein's variation of GR theory (the one with the constant set to zero).

What does that do for me in real terms? Well, I'm not "mystified" by the fact that solar wind is whipping by at a million miles per hour. I'm not "surprised" by a multimillion degree coronal loop. I understand "jets" that stream off the sun. These were all real "predictions" that came from adding EM fields to GR as demonstrated in Birkeland's experiments.
 
Ziggurat said:
No. This is not an analogy for negative pressure, it is negative pressure. Once again: what exactly do you think pressure is? I keep asking you this, and you keep ignoring it. I have to conclude that you don't really know.
Click to expand...

I have concluded exactly the same thing about you based on the whole Casimir argument. None of you can appreciate the difference between "pressure" (caused by the atoms in the chamber) and the "force" that pushes the plates together that comes from the energy observed at the level of QM. Even that energy is 'positive pressure' there is just more of it outside the plates than inside the plates so the plates get pushed together.

Your liquid analogy is completely off topic, but even that is simply a "force" putting "stress" on the bonds in the liquid. It is not "negative pressure" in the way you think it is.
 
Michael Mozina said:
I have concluded exactly the same thing about you based on the whole Casimir argument. None of you can appreciate the difference between "pressure" (caused by the atoms in the chamber) and the "force" that pushes the plates together that comes from the energy observed at the level of QM. Even that energy is 'positive pressure' there is just more of it outside the plates than inside the plates so the plates get pushed together.
Click to expand...

If what you say is valid, then you should be able to explain why there's more pressure on the outside than on the inside. You seem to have abandoned the idea of atoms since you couldn't defend it, and now it's QM level "energy". So I take it the "blocking" effect doesn't apply anymore too?

So this QM positive pressure that's everywhere, has it been measured? Can you see its effects in other ways? How would you determine where to set the "zero" point with respect to this QM positive pressure you say is there?
 
Michael Mozina said:
I have concluded exactly the same thing about you based on the whole Casimir argument.
Click to expand...

Whether or not you think I'm right about what pressure means, the fact remains that I've told you my definition. You have not said whether or not you agree with my definition, nor have you argued that I made any mistakes in how I have applied my definition. In contrast, you have yet to provide your definition of pressure. Do you honestly not understand the difference between us in this regard?

Your liquid analogy is completely off topic, but even that is simply a "force" putting "stress" on the bonds in the liquid. It is not "negative pressure" in the way you think it is.
Click to expand...

Once again: what do you think pressure is? This is a very simple question, and the answer should be fairly simple as well. You have repeatedly failed to answer it. We cannot make progress if we cannot agree on what words mean, and right now it doesn't look like we agree about what the word "pressure" means.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
Whether or not you think I'm right about what pressure means, the fact remains that I've told you my definition. You have not said whether or not you agree with my definition, nor have you argued that I made any mistakes in how I have applied my definition. In contrast, you have yet to provide your definition of pressure.
Click to expand...

This is an absolutely false statement. I provided you with a definition which you simply didn't like because it busted your show.

In the Casimir scenario, the "pressure" of the chamber can be a "range" of various pressures, with an asymptote at zero because we can't remove all the atoms from the chamber. The "pressure" is not zero. It's certainly not "negative". The "force" comes from the level of QM, it evidently involves the EM carrier particle as evidenced by the importance of the type of material, but it too is "kinetic" in nature. There is simply more kinetic energy pushing the plates together than there is kinetic energy pushing them apart.
 
temporalillusion said:
If what you say is valid, then you should be able to explain why there's more pressure on the outside than on the inside. You seem to have abandoned the idea of atoms since you couldn't defend it, and now it's QM level "energy".
Click to expand...

As I stated from the outset, the WIKI "explanation" of this phenomenon is quite accurate. I was simply trying to provide a macroscopic example of the process in action as an *analogy*, but evidently some took that literally. My bad.

So I take it the "blocking" effect doesn't apply anymore too?
Click to expand...
The material seems to have a distinct effect on the outcome of this process. Why do you suppose that might be?

So this QM positive pressure that's everywhere, has it been measured?
Click to expand...

It has a positive energy influence on everything that has been observed in every experiment trying to reach zero degrees Kelvin.

Can you see its effects in other ways?
Click to expand...

Sure. QM interactions are directly related to these effects.

How would you determine where to set the "zero" point with respect to this QM positive pressure you say is there?
Click to expand...

You don't. You simply accept that we live in a positive energy state and that this positive energy state has always existed because energy cannot be created or destroyed.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
This is an absolutely false statement. I provided you with a definition which you simply didn't like because it busted your show.
Click to expand...

Uh, no. What you provided me with was simply a version of my own definition, with a substitution that made calculations more cumbersome unless you undid that substitution. Since it was, in fact, the same thing, how on earth can you conclude that it "busted my show"?

And that is not the definition you are using, anyways. Are you honestly pretending that you calculate relativistic mass whenever you want to calculate a pressure? No, I don't think so. So once again: how do you define pressure?
 
Michael Mozina said:
It is indeed a temperature changes from one *greater than zero (Kelvin)* temperature to a lower temperature that is also greater than zero.
Click to expand...
And what is it doing when it goes from 200 degrees K to 100 degrees K, due to a huge pressure drop? It a negative change in presuure anfd a negative change in temperature.

You don't like that. Okay.
There seems to be two fallacies in play here. First pressure and force are not the same idea, and secondly, a fall in something (temp, pressure, etc.) does not necessarily equate to a "negative" state, just a "less positive" one.
Click to expand...
Semantics, the negative refers to the scalar chance in a state. Less positive means negative.

4 is less positive that five, but it is also 5-1=4 which is a negative change in the number line.
The picking of an arbitrary zero point seems to be related to the second fallacy in play, but the big mistake Guth made and your side is still making is equating pressure and force as one and the same idea. They are not. There is "force" in the Casimir effect that pushes the plates together, but there is no "negative pressure" in a positive pressure chamber.
Click to expand...

The point is that gravity is attractive in nature there it is refered to as 'negative', I am not exactly sure what is the deal with the integral that you refuse to do for Ziggy, I can do integrals, although I might have to refresh my memory when I do trig related one. So if you do the integral that Ziggy suggested , what will the sign be ? Maybe he wanted you to find the differential, I can't recall.

It is not magic math, differentials have real world meaning as do integrals.

The vacum energy is what it , if you want to say that gravity is positive that is fine, if you make all attractive forces positive then you are making the repulive ones negative.

You have an object ion a g gravitational field at a heigth of ten meters and you then move it to 5 meters, it will be at a lower potential energy.

So the scale is negative in terms of potential energy for that object.
 
Michael Mozina said:
As I stated from the outset, the WIKI "explanation" of this phenomenon is quite accurate.
Click to expand...

That's great! The wiki clearly shows the pressure is negative, and you agree with the wiki explanation, so that resolves that sticky item.

Your explanations didn't remotely resemble the wiki explanation, even analogously though.

Michael Mozina said:
I was simply trying to provide a macroscopic example of the process in action as an *analogy*, but evidently some took that literally. My bad.
Click to expand...

You started out saying that it was kinetic energy that pushed the plates together, and then talked about the billions of neutrinos everywhere. And then you talked about it being difficult to get particles to go between the plates because of some blocking effect. At no point did you indicate that you were making an analogy. You are just backpedaling.

Michael Mozina said:
The material seems to have a distinct effect on the outcome of this process. Why do you suppose that might be?
Click to expand...

Because this is all about electromagnetic fields and standing waves and such, so you will get different results if the materials are conductors or dielectrics or insulators. As Tubbythin pointed out, the Casimir effect an effect of second quantization. From the wiki you accept:

Casimir's observation was that the second-quantized quantum electromagnetic field, in the presence of bulk bodies such as metals or dielectrics, must obey the same boundary conditions that the classical electromagnetic field must obey. In particular, this affects the calculation of the vacuum energy in the presence of a conductor or dielectric.
Click to expand...
 
Michael Mozina said:
...snip...
This is again a "false" statement. They measure "force" due to the casimir effect in a *positive pressure* environment. Again, it is *extremely* clear to me now that you folks are confusing *pressure* and *force*. The Casmir effect is a great example of this. The whole environment is *positively pressurized*, so there is no physical way that any location in the chamber experiences "negative pressure", just force.

The same would be true if we put two magnets together in a positive pressure environment. Yes the north and south ends of two magnets will experience *attraction*, but the space in between the two magnets never experiences "negative pressure".

FYI, it's going to be a busy day at work for me today.
Click to expand...

That is correct: "The whole environment is *positively pressurized*" and the experimental physicists know this!
That is why they calibrate their apparatus to remove the effect of the "positively pressurized environment" and just measure the Casimir effect.

This sounds like we are back to you assuming that the scientists are so dumb that they do not know that their vacuum chamber is not a perfect vacuum.

Perhaps you should read your previous posts.
Michael Mozina said:
Reality Check said:
Hi MM: You still have not answered my question so I will restate it.
Experimental physicists know that there are atoms in a vacuum chamber. They know what their effects are on a pair of metallic plates (or a metallic plate and sphere) used to measure the Casimir effect.

Why do you think that they would be dumb enough to ignore this effect when measuring the Casimir effect?
Click to expand...
No, and I do not believe it is the atoms that create this effect either. I was trying to use a macro example of the idea, but in retrospect it was probably a dumb idea. The whole point is that there is no *negative pressure* involved in this process. It is a kinetic energy process taking place at the quantum level between the plates and the carrier particles of the EM field. The WIKI explanation is actually incredibly accurate IMO right down to the direction of the BLUE arrows in the image. It's a quantum process and we know the carrier particles involved because of the fact the the material makes a significant difference in these experiments.
Click to expand...
Just what magic process enables you to know what the unlabeled BLUE lines in the diagram actually are?

My guess (and only a guess) is that they are forces due to this in the article's first paragraph:
In a classical description, the lack of an external field also means that there is no field between the plates, and no force would be measured between them. When this field is instead studied using quantum electrodynamics, it is seen that the plates do affect the virtual photons which constitute the field, and generate a net force — either an attraction or a repulsion depending on the specific arrangement of the two plates. WP
Click to expand...



So is this what you are saying:
  • If the plates are such that the net force is replusive then the net pressure (force divided by area) is positive.
  • If the plates are such that the net force is attractive then the net pressure is still positive despite the fact that the net force has changed sign.
If so your conclusion must be that the area of the plates must have also changed sign to keep the pressure positive. Can you tell us how to measure a negative area? Do we construct square plates with imaginary sides and square their imaginary lengths?


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).
 
Last edited:
Hi MM:
i would also be interested in your defintiion of pressure since it seems to be different from that actually used in science.

With that we may be able to see whether there is any answers to the following questions:
Does it have something to do with force and area?
If a force changes from being attractive to being replusive then what happens to the sign of the pressure?
If an apparatus has a constant area during experiments then is there some way to relate pressure to force?
Does pressure always push things together?
 
Michael Mozina said:
What makes you believe that gravity operates on scales larger than the EM field when the EM field is something like 39 OOM's more powerful than gravity?
Click to expand...
The arguments are standard. I see no value in repeating them. (I will not comment further on this line of discussion)
 
Dancing David said:
It is not magic math, differentials have real world meaning as do integrals.
Click to expand...


All math is magic to Michael, since he doesn't have the slightest idea how to do math or how to apply it to his distorted ideas about physics. If he keeps math in the realms of magic, he can handwave away any reality based notions while claiming to have a superior position without ever having to actually demonstrate it to be plausible.
 
Michael Mozina said:
As I stated from the outset, the WIKI "explanation" of this phenomenon is quite accurate.
Click to expand...

Well that's great. Especially since the wiki article links to an article on Cassimir pressure. Said article contains:
Casimir pressure can be found. Because Casimir force between conductors is attractive then the Casimir pressure in space between the conductors is negative.
Click to expand...

I also suggest you take a look, from the first wiki article, at the equation at the bottom of the section entitled "Casimir's Calculation".
 
Michael Mozina said:
I clearly understand the difference between 'pressure' and force, which is obviously something you do not understand. The "pressure" in the Casimir experiment is always positive, and the "force" that makes the plates come together is not the same, nor is it related to the "pressure" in the chamber. When you finally acknowledge this distinction, *then* I won't spit coffee out of my nose in pure disbelief when you try to lecture me about physics. :)
Click to expand...

Why don't you look at the equation at the end of the section entitled "Casimir's Calculation"?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom