Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

Status
Not open for further replies.
dogjones said:
So when we talk about the big bang/inflation etc, ALL we mean is our visible universe?
Click to expand...

Generally it is assumed for simplicity that the universe is close to homogeneous everywhere, based on the fact that the part of it we can observe is (on large scales). However that assumption is not necessary, and probably not true.

By 'multiverse' do we mean the other visible universes? Would there have been multiple bangs?
Click to expand...

That term refers to models in which the universe on large scales is very inhomgeneous, and regions with very different physics can exist simultaneously in neighboring regions.

If so, this is rather difficult for me to understand. We observe our universe expanding, extrapolate back in time, and get to the grapefruit. Fine. But suppose we are (instantaneously) transported 7 billion light years in a certain direction, and observe again. I imagine we will observe the same properties, extrapolate back in time, and get to the grapefruit. But this grapefruit overlaps with the other grapefruit we've observed. 7 billion light years or so worth of it. Assuming we could do this on to infinity, then we have an infinite number of overlapping grapefruits... isn't this a bit of a problem?
Click to expand...

Why is it a problem?
 
sol invictus said:
Generally it is assumed for simplicity that the universe is close to homogeneous everywhere, based on the fact that the part of it we can observe is (on large scales). However that assumption is not necessary, and probably not true.
Click to expand...

Why do you think it probably isn't true? Is it because infinity implies infinite variety?
sol invictus said:
That term refers to models in which the universe on large scales is very inhomgeneous, and regions with very different physics can exist simultaneously in neighboring regions.
Click to expand...

Wow, interesting. I thought it was something to do with other 'dimensions' or something rather than if you travel long enough in a straight line you may hit another universe (assuming inhomogenousness (inhomogenuity?)).

sol invictus said:
Why is it a problem?
Click to expand...

Well, the BB assumes we started out as a singularity, yes? But can a singularity be of infinite size?
 
dogjones said:
[...]

Well, the BB assumes we started out as a singularity, yes? But can a singularity be of infinite size?
Click to expand...
(bold added)

That's the (or one) popular misconception.

'The Big Bang' may be described more precisely as the application of GR (General Relativity) plus the Standard Model (of particle physics, which incorporates our understanding of the electroweak force and the strong force, together with the specifics of various particles) plus some modest extensions (inflation and dark energy, in some form or other) to the (observable) universe as a whole; and somewhat more narrowly to 'running the clock backwards'.

As such it does NOT incorporate, or even hint at, what the physics of the Planck regime is ... i.e. how does stuff behave where the mutual contradiction between GR and QM becomes intolerable (or, if you prefer, there's no quantum theory of gravity, or similar). This means that the clock stops at ~10^-43s ... and in practice considerably before then too, because the Standard Model (plus its 'safe' extensions) ceases to be applicable (at around ~10^-30s??).

The only thing 'the singularity' (or any singularity) tells us is that the physics we know, today, is incomplete; i.e. there are circumstances (regions of parameter space) where it must remain mute.
 
Cool. So, assuming infinite homogenousness, running back in time to, say, ~10^-43s, we get a massively compressed yet infinitely extended Planck regime, which (going forward again) inflates outward into a larger infinity?

The school/popular textbooks should get rid of the 'all the matter in the universe was once compressed into an area smaller than a pinhead' thing anyway.
 
dogjones said:
Why do you think it probably isn't true? Is it because infinity implies infinite variety?
Click to expand...

For several different reasons. Essentially, because it would require an mechanism - i.e. there is no reason for it to be true a priori - and there isn't one (inflation doesn't suffice).

Wow, interesting. I thought it was something to do with other 'dimensions' or something rather than if you travel long enough in a straight line you may hit another universe (assuming inhomogenousness (inhomogenuity?)).
Click to expand...

Sometimes those other regions can have a different number of (large) dimensions :). Otherwise, no.

Well, the BB assumes we started out as a singularity, yes? But can a singularity be of infinite size?
Click to expand...

Yes, it can - at least in the sense that the size is infinite at all times t>0, so if you define the size at the singularity as a limit it's infinite. But as DRD says, we can't trust classical gravity (or any theory we understand) under those conditions anyway.

The school/popular textbooks should get rid of the 'all the matter in the universe was once compressed into an area smaller than a pinhead' thing anyway.
Click to expand...

Well, the "observable" part gets arbitrarily small. And in models with finite volume, the volume does go to zero as t->0. And in models with curvature, the radius of curvature also goes to zero. So it's not exactly wrong - it's just an example of what happens when you try to explain something fairly complex and technical in simple terms.
 
Last edited:
temporalillusion said:
And that sentence doesn't disagree with what these guys are saying, that you think it does is telling.

Did you read the sentence before it?

Only waves that can fit multiples of half a wavelength between the surfaces resonate, leaving non-resonating frequencies suppressed.
Click to expand...

So you end up with "waves" and a "lack thereof", or a "higher" and "lower" density of such waves. There is no "negative pressure". It's just lower density of standing waves resonating on the inside and a higher density of such waves on the outside, hence the plates are "pushed" together.

On the wikipedia page it takes this basic premise, then derives the formula for the pressure between the plates from that premise. And the result is a negative pressure.
Click to expand...

It is simply the result of a "pressure differential", nothing more, nothing less. The equations is a mathematical "oversimplification" of what occurs at very small distances, and what occurs at the level of quantum physics.

You've said you agree with the wiki page, but you've said that that pressure formula is incomplete, so please show where the derivation is wrong, or show how the basic premise from the source which you chose is wrong.
Click to expand...

The equations are not "wrong" anymore than Chapman's equations were "wrong" in terms of the energy it predicts. They are simply "oversimplifications" of what is a very complex system.

Doesn't the fact that the sources that you yourself choose only support your position if you take one or two sentences out of the whole but other sentences in those same sources undermine you tell you anything at all?
Click to expand...

Doesn't the fact you folks entirely ignored that physics link and it's *exact same explanation* tell me something too? I'm afraid you're unwilling to hear what you do not wish to hear, or see what you do not wish to see in terms of those graphics and you are fixated only on a couple of words in that Wiki article, and ignoring that physics link I provided entirely. How did you rationalize that behavior? Isn't that just pure denial?
 
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/32380

Here's the whole paragraph.

The quantum Casimir effect comes about because a vacuum always contains fluctuating electromagnetic fields.
Click to expand...
In other words, it's not "empty" at all, but rather it is "full of" fluctuating fields of energy.

Normally these fluctuations are roughly the same everywhere, but two close conducting surfaces set “boundary conditions” that limit the number of allowed field frequencies between them. Only waves that can fit multiples of half a wavelength between the surfaces resonate, leaving non-resonating frequencies suppressed. The result is that the total field inside a gap between conductors cannot produce enough pressure to match that from outside, so the surfaces are pushed together.
Click to expand...

This is a perfectly accurate description of the process. The plates are pushed together because the pressure on the outside of the plates is "greater than" the pressure inside the plates. There's no mystery here. He goes on to explain a *repulsive* process which you again you all simply utterly ignore because it rains on your parade.
 
Michael Mozina said:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/32380
Click to expand...

Notably absent is any actual math to calculate forces or pressures. This is an article aimed at the mainstream reader. Why would you assume they wouldn't dumb down the description?

But here's an interesting little bit from elsewhere in the article, describing this classical analogue:

And, like the quantum Casimir effect, two close surfaces in such a liquid set boundary conditions, this time by preferring to be in contact with one of the substances over the other. To fulfil these conditions, the surfaces attempt to surround a single region of the preferred substance by drawing together.
Click to expand...

Why, that sounds like a description of negative pressure!
 
Michael Mozina said:
Doesn't the fact you folks entirely ignored that physics link and it's *exact same explanation* tell me something too? I'm afraid you're unwilling to hear what you do not wish to hear, or see what you do not wish to see in terms of those graphics and you are fixated only on a couple of words in that Wiki article, and ignoring that physics link I provided entirely. How did you rationalize that behavior? Isn't that just pure denial?
Click to expand...


But you see, Michael, since you've demonstrated time and time again that you don't have the slightest clue about the science of physics, your interpretation of the links and articles and pretty little pictures becomes irrelevant. You don't understand the physics, and consequently you aren't able to understand the comments people here are making in response to your silly ideas. It's a vicious cycle, I know, but you started out wrong, you're still wrong, and if history is any indicator, you'll continue to be wrong.
 
Michael Mozina said:
In other words, it's not "empty" at all, but rather it is "full of" fluctuating fields of energy.
Click to expand...

Yes! Right! We're almost there! Now just apply the well-known definition of pressure, P = -dE/dV to a system which has a constant energy density, as you've now learned that empty space has. Apply the equations of General Relativity---look, energy density is right in there---to a vacuum which has a constant energy density. You will get (a) negative pressure and (b) an accelerating expansion of the universe.

That was the whole point of bringing Casimir into this discussion: inflation and "dark energy" are just what you expect when you allow the vacuum to have an energy density due to fluctuations.
 
Michael Mozina said:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/32380

Here's the whole paragraph.


In other words, it's not "empty" at all, but rather it is "full of" fluctuating fields of energy.



This is a perfectly accurate description of the process. The plates are pushed together because the pressure on the outside of the plates is "greater than" the pressure inside the plates. There's no mystery here. He goes on to explain a *repulsive* process which you again you all simply utterly ignore because it rains on your parade.
Click to expand...

Did you miss this part?

The critical Casimir effect has the same underlying principle, but is a classical phenomenon that arises in a mixed liquid close to its critical point — the point, defined by a threshold temperature and pressure, beyond which the gas and liquid phases are indistinguishable. A mixed liquid taken towards its critical point gradually begins to separate into regions of its constituent substances, the size and shape of which fluctuate like the quantum fields in a vacuum. And, like the quantum Casimir effect, two close surfaces in such a liquid set boundary conditions, this time by preferring to be in contact with one of the substances over the other. To fulfil these conditions, the surfaces attempt to surround a single region of the preferred substance by drawing together.
Click to expand...

So they are speaking of a “classical phenomenon” that is analogous to the Casimir effect in that it depends on boundary conditions. The difference is in this example the “mixed liquid” is not at it’s zero point energy as the vacuum field in the Casimir effect is, that is the critical factor you seem to be ignoring. This “classical phenomenon” is also dependent on the “critical point” of the mixed liquid where it can begin a phase transition. That too is analogous to the effects in cosmological inflation resulting from a phase transition of the Higgs field.
 
Ziggurat said:
Notably absent is any actual math to calculate forces or pressures. This is an article aimed at the mainstream reader. Why would you assume they wouldn't dumb down the description?
Click to expand...

The explanation of pressure is not being "dumbed down", you just don't like the implication of his statements because they agree with everything I've told you.

But here's an interesting little bit from elsewhere in the article, describing this classical analogue:



Why, that sounds like a description of negative pressure!
Click to expand...

No, that sounds like you're reaching now for anything at all to prop up your otherwise falsified belief system. It is relatively easy to understand how a constant quantum bombardment on all surfaces, can create unequal "pressure" on the sides of the plates, and can cause them to be "pushed" together or pushed apart. What (physically) however would cause "negative pressure" to form on *any* side of *any* plate?

The only thing happening in a Casimir experiment is a "pressure difference" between various sides of the plates. There is no area in that chamber that experiences "negative pressure" because the whole thing takes place in a *POSITIVE PRESSURE ENVIRONMENT* in the first place! Hoy.

The denial quotient around here is pretty much off scale at this point. You folks do not want to admit or embrace the notion that it can be "repulsive" as well as attractive, and therefore you simply ignore every physics, and explanation I've provided.

Talking with creationists is never rewarding, and I can see that talking with *this* group of "creationists" isn't going to be any different. The only thing that is different is you have a somewhat older creation date that you can't justify via empirical physics any more than any other creationist. Belief in your creation story requires a pure act of "faith" on the part of believer.
 
Michael Mozina said:
No, that sounds like you're reaching now for anything at all to prop up your otherwise falsified belief system. It is relatively easy to understand how a constant quantum bombardment on all surfaces, can create unequal "pressure" on the sides of the plates, and can cause them to be "pushed" together or pushed apart. What (physically) however would cause "negative pressure" to form on *any* side of *any* plate?
Click to expand...

So it seems like you're back to categorically denying the existence of negative pressure under any circumstance.

Get back to me when you figure out how to define pressure. Right now, you're just beclowning yourself.
 
GeeMack said:
But you see, Michael, since you've demonstrated time and time again that you don't have the slightest clue about the science of physics, your interpretation of the links and articles and pretty little pictures becomes irrelevant.
Click to expand...

You have demonstrated time and time again that you are not actually interested in finding the "truth" and therefore your opinions of me, the articles and the pretty pictures is irrelevant. You aren't interested in truth.
 
Ziggurat said:
So it seems like you're back to categorically denying the existence of negative pressure under any circumstance.
Click to expand...

No, I said there was no such thing as "negative pressure in a vacuum" as Guth required from his vacuum to make his magical inflation theory work correctly. I also pointed out to you that the Casmir effect can be "repulsive", not simply attractive, and you all simply ignored that giant problem with your "interpretation" of the process. Denial of fact and misrepresentation of my statements isn't helping your case, it's just making you look bad IMO.
 
Michael Mozina said:
No, I said there was no such thing as "negative pressure in a vacuum" as Guth required from his vacuum to make his magical inflation theory work correctly. I also pointed out to you that the Casmir effect can be "repulsive", not simply attractive, and you all simply ignored that giant problem with your "interpretation" of the process. Denial of fact and misrepresentation of my statements isn't helping your case, it's just making you look bad IMO.
Click to expand...

Errrr.... we were using the argument that it can be repulsive as well as attractive to demonstrate that your understanding of its physics was deeply lacking.
 
DeiRenDopa said:
(bold added)

That's the (or one) popular misconception.

'The Big Bang' may be described more precisely as the application of GR (General Relativity) plus the Standard Model (of particle physics, which incorporates our understanding of the electroweak force and the strong force, together with the specifics of various particles) plus some modest extensions (inflation and dark energy, in some form or other) to the (observable) universe as a whole; and somewhat more narrowly to 'running the clock backwards'.

As such it does NOT incorporate, or even hint at, what the physics of the Planck regime is ... i.e. how does stuff behave where the mutual contradiction between GR and QM becomes intolerable (or, if you prefer, there's no quantum theory of gravity, or similar). This means that the clock stops at ~10^-43s ... and in practice considerably before then too, because the Standard Model (plus its 'safe' extensions) ceases to be applicable (at around ~10^-30s??).

The only thing 'the singularity' (or any singularity) tells us is that the physics we know, today, is incomplete; i.e. there are circumstances (regions of parameter space) where it must remain mute.
Click to expand...

Even if you "stop" prior to a "singularity", you end up with a concentrated amount of mass that is surrounded by a gigantic event horizon from which no material at all should ever escape. How large do you figure the event horizon might have been around this "near singularity thingy" once it gets down to something that is smaller than a breadbox?
 
edd said:
Errrr.... we were using the argument that it can be repulsive as well as attractive to demonstrate that your understanding of its physics was deeply lacking.
Click to expand...

My explanation of this process allows for this process to be either repulsive or attractive depending on the specific geometry and circumstances whereas your definition does not. I'm afraid it's your understanding that is deeply lacking, not mine.
 
Please explain how yours does so then, and demonstrate that the pressure in your explanation is positive using the dE/dV definition.
 
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/32380

The quantum Casimir effect comes about because a vacuum always contains fluctuating electromagnetic fields. Normally these fluctuations are roughly the same everywhere, but two close conducting surfaces set “boundary conditions” that limit the number of allowed field frequencies between them. Only waves that can fit multiples of half a wavelength between the surfaces resonate, leaving non-resonating frequencies suppressed. The result is that the total field inside a gap between conductors cannot produce enough pressure to match that from outside, so the surfaces are pushed together.
Click to expand...

The pressure between the plates is "less than" the "pressure" on the outside of the plates so the plates are *pushed together* because of this "pressure difference". No surface area experiences "negative pressure", just "less pressure" than the other side of the plate.

This explanation is completely consistent with everything I've said, and completely consistent with the explanations and drawings in the WIKI article.

300px-Casimir_plates.svg.png


The small blue arrows represent the "pressure" on the inside surfaces of the plates, whereas the larger blue arrows represent the *greater pressure* on the outside of the plates that pushes them together. As the author puts it:

The result is that the total field inside a gap between conductors cannot produce enough pressure to match that from outside, so the surfaces are pushed together.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
So in order for there to be a repulsive force there must be more pressure between the plates in some geometries than is outside - how does this happen, when the conductive plates can only restrict the number of possible modes?
 
The Man said:
Are you referring to the dependence on boundary conditions I specifically mentioned or did you miss that as well?
Click to expand...

You're still ignoring the key issue. There is absolutely no "negative pressure" involved in this process. The experiments always have "pressure" in them, both at the atomic level (due to atoms) and QM level. There is no negative pressure involved, just a "pressure difference" between the two regions. The "pressure" inside the plates is "less than" the pressure outside of the plates. You've confused the idea of "lower pressure" with "negative pressure".
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
You're still ignoring the key issue. There is absolutely no "negative pressure" involved in this process. The experiments always have "pressure" in them, both at the atomic level (due to atoms) and QM level. There is no negative pressure involved, just a "pressure difference" between the two regions. The "pressure" inside the plates is "less than" the pressure outside of the plates. You've confused the idea of "lower pressure" with "negative pressure".
Click to expand...

You still continue to ignore the significance of zero point energy and as a result confuse that energy as resulting in some kind of “pressure”. Lower then zero is by definition negative, in energy or pressure.

Please quantify your always positive QM “pressure”, as I have said before it would be a revolution in energy production as well as do away with conservation of energy and Newton’s third law.
 
Hi Micheal Mozina: Have you read up on pressure in a physics textbook yet?

In that case there are these outstanding questions.
Reality Check said:
Outstanding questions for MM from me:
First asked 26 March 2009
I know that these are absurdly simple questions that a high school student could answer but that should just make it easier for you :biggrin:.



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 use the standard defeinition of pressure that then have a guess at:
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?
    (since you have problems with infinity as in your recent posts, replace it by 101010 pascals!)
    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).
Click to expand...
 
The Man said:
You still continue to ignore the significance of zero point energy
Click to expand...

There is no "zero point" in the first place. The universe is simply full of quantum energy, even a vacuum without atoms.

and as a result confuse that energy as resulting in some kind of “pressure”.
Click to expand...

You are simply confusing "lower pressure" with "negative pressure". There is "positive pressure" on both sides of both plates, just more of that pressure on the outside than on the inside. There is no area that experiences "negative pressure", just "lower pressure" and "higher pressure".

Lower then zero is by definition negative, in energy or pressure.
Click to expand...

It is not "zero" anywhere in the chamber, ever. It can't be. There is energy flowing through the chamber at all times.

Please quantify your always positive QM “pressure”, as I have said before it would be a revolution in energy production as well as do away with conservation of energy and Newton’s third law.
Click to expand...

Huh? It does not do away with any sort of conservation of energy laws or any other laws of nature. What are talking about? QM simply describes the energy *already in the system*.
 
Michael Mozina said:
There is no "zero point" in the first place. The universe is simply full of quantum energy, even a vacuum without atoms.
Click to expand...

Well, then it should be a simple matter for you to harness or at least measure your omnipresent “quantum energy”, please let us know when you get that figured out.


Michael Mozina said:
You are simply confusing "lower pressure" with "negative pressure". There is "positive pressure" on both sides of both plates, just more of that pressure on the outside than on the inside. There is no area that experiences "negative pressure", just "lower pressure" and "higher pressure".
Click to expand...

As I said a "lower pressure" then zero is by definition a "negative pressure".


Michael Mozina said:
It is not "zero" anywhere in the chamber, ever. It can't be. There is energy flowing through the chamber at all times.
Click to expand...

Again please let us know when you can measure or tap into this "pressure" or “energy flowing through the chamber at all times” of yours.


Michael Mozina said:
Huh? It does not do away with any sort of conservation of energy laws or any other laws of nature. What are talking about? QM simply describes the energy *already in the system*.
Click to expand...

Just what energy would that be? Certainly not the zero point energy or vacuum energy, as you proclaim “It can't be”. So you will have to explain your own simple QM description of “the energy *already in the system*”.
 
Michael Mozina said:
You're still ignoring the key issue. There is absolutely no "negative pressure" involved in this process. The experiments always have "pressure" in them, both at the atomic level (due to atoms) and QM level. There is no negative pressure involved, just a "pressure difference" between the two regions. The "pressure" inside the plates is "less than" the pressure outside of the plates. You've confused the idea of "lower pressure" with "negative pressure".
Click to expand...

I don't think it's particularly fair to end a line of argument like that and takes us several steps back without dealing with the criticisms levelled.
 
Michael Mozina said:
You mean the ones that say PV=nRT?
Click to expand...

The physics textbook I am teaching out of shows pV = nRT on page 621. Let's look at that more closely, shall we?

"... the ideal gas equation pV = nRT which is based on experimental studies of gas behavior". Hmm, that doesn't say that that is the definition of pressure, it says that's the particular form of the pressure you get when your force arises from the kinetic behavior of an ideal gas. Is that all it says? No, on page 648 we find dW = p dV as a fundamental aspect of the first law of thermodynamics, and a note on page 647 that dW = -dE.

Let's try another textbook: Kittel and Kroemer, "Thermal Physics" (Damn, I borrowed this from my officemate years ago and should give it back ...), usually used for graduate students. Page 66:

"p_s = -dE_s/dV is the pressure on a system in state s"

Hmm, MM, that doesn't say PV = nRT. Try Reif, page 153:

"furthermore, the work done on the system when its volume is changed by an amount dV in the process is simply given by dW = p dV. Hence one obtains the fundamental thermodynamic relation T dS = dE + p dV"

Fundamental, eh? Huang, page 23:

"In an infinitesimal reversible transformation it is easily verified that dA = -P dV - S dT. From this follow the relations P = -dA/dV ... "

Remember that the Casimir Effect was discovered by, measured by, and studied by the same sort of people who write these textbooks. For example, the (very complex) predictions for the Casimir force between nonflat plates were first computed by Mehran Kardar, who recently published two statistical mechanics textbooks, one for particles and one for fields. (And by Bob Jaffe, one of the founding fathers of modern nuclear theory.) And before you announce that theorists live in some castle-in-the-sky and you're talking about reality, let me tell you that they embarked on this calculation because nanomechanical engineers wanted better computation tools for the Casimir forces on their little nano-gears and cantilevers. And here you are, MM, claiming that the Casimir Effect is misexplained because its proponents don't understand pressure as well as you do? Because you've thought really hard about the arrows in a Wikipedia diagram and you read PV=nRT in an intro physics textbook somewhere? Really, MM?
 
The Man said:
Well, then it should be a simple matter for you to harness or at least measure your omnipresent “quantum energy”, please let us know when you get that figured out.




As I said a "lower pressure" then zero is by definition a "negative pressure".




Again please let us know when you can measure or tap into this "pressure" or “energy flowing through the chamber at all times” of yours.




Just what energy would that be? Certainly not the zero point energy or vacuum energy, as you proclaim “It can't be”. So you will have to explain your own simple QM description of “the energy *already in the system*”.
Click to expand...
(bold added)

But if you missed the quantitative revolution - as MM seems to have done - then it is (very likely) hard to downright impossible to see that "there is no negative pressure" (in the Casimir experiment) leads inexorably to "there is a vast store of essentially free energy waiting to be tapped" or, perhaps, "energy is not conserved".
 
Michael Mozina said:
You mean the ones that say PV=nRT?
Click to expand...

Yes, those ones. Now, try actually consulting one of those textbooks. Look in the index for the word "pressure". Find the first instance of a reference to pressure. You will likely find that they define the term when they first use it.

Now, is that definition the ideal gas law? Not in any textbook I've seen.

We've been over this before, Michael. I've given you multiple textbook definitions of pressure. NONE of them rely on the ideal gas law to define pressure. It would be amazingly stupid to do so, since it's an equation of state whose entire usefulness comes from quantifying the relationship between previously defined quantities. Which is why nobody BUT you ever tries to do so. And why nobody believes that you've actually bothered to read about pressure in a physics textbook.
 
DeiRenDopa said:
(bold added)

But if you missed the quantitative revolution - as MM seems to have done -
Click to expand...

Evidently the "quantitative revolution" of elves and fairies is the only thing I "missed". It's fine when to quantify something when you can demonstrate it actually exists outside of your head. Since you folks can't do that, I'm afraid your "quantitative revolution" is a "religious revelation", not a scientific revolution.

then it is (very likely) hard to downright impossible to see that "there is no negative pressure" (in the Casimir experiment) leads inexorably to "there is a vast store of essentially free energy waiting to be tapped" or, perhaps, "energy is not conserved".
Click to expand...

I have never once suggested that energy conservation laws are being violated. That is another perfect example of you "spinning" my words and building your own strawman. Typical creationist tactics.

The fact a "vacuum" has energy in it is no revelation to anyone except evidently to you folks.
 
The Man said:
Well, then it should be a simple matter for you to harness or at least measure your omnipresent “quantum energy”, please let us know when you get that figured out.
Click to expand...

They already know it's there. Harnessing it is something else altogether.

As I said a "lower pressure" then zero is by definition a "negative pressure".
Click to expand...

It's not "lower than zero", it "lower than the outside (of the plates) pressure, and *greater than zero*.

Hell, even when I provide you folks to links that agree with my explanation, diagrams that agree with my explanation and the whole nine yards, you all sit around in pure denial of simple fact. The very "best" vacuum on Earth contains atoms in it. The very best vacuum on Earth therefore has a "pressure" that is "greater than" zero. The best vacuums on Earth contain all sort of neutrinos and flowing energy in them. There is never any area of any vacuum that contains "zero" pressure, so there is no way you will ever get "less than" zero pressure inside a chamber that has pressure in it. This whole discussion amounts to pure denial on your part since the whole thing takes place in a positive pressure environment.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom