Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[Michael Mozina]

Evidenced here, on Earth by the Casimir effect.

Gah! Holy Cow! Talk about denial.

Which way are the little blue arrows pointing inside the plates? Where do you see "negative pressure"?

 

[Tubbythin]

Gah! Holy Cow! Talk about denial.

Yeah I know. First you claim negative pressure in vacuum is impossible and cannot be observed. Then your shown that this is not true and has been known to not be true for some time thanks to a very very famous physical effect of quantum fields. Then you deny that this effect is real despite the fact that multiple laboratory measurements agree exactly with theoretical predictions and you are completely incapable of producing an alternative solution. Excellent example of denialism. Nice of you to point it out to the world.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Yeah I know.

No, you don't know, so I'll just spell it out for you. If you were correct, those little blue arrows would be pointing inward toward the opposite plate.

First you claim negative pressure in vacuum is impossible and cannot be observed.

And that will probably forever be true because our best vacuums cannot and do not remove even every atom from a 'vacuum", let alone all the other forms of energy that blow through the whole Earth every day.

Then your shown that this is not true and has been known to not be true for some time thanks to a very very famous physical effect of quantum fields.

You're now misrepresenting QM. Look at the direction of inside arrows very carefully. It is a positive kinetic energy state that we live in.

Then you deny that this effect is real despite the fact that multiple laboratory measurements agree exactly with theoretical predictions and you are completely incapable of producing an alternative solution. Excellent example of denialism. Nice of you to point it out to the world.

All you are doing is pointing out to the world that you didn't even look at, nor consider the explanation given on Wiki. It's actually quite accurate, but it doesn't support your case as the inside arrows of the diagram demonstrate in vivid color.

 

[derekmcd]

Basing your knowledge of physics on a picture... I'm not surprised. If you understood what the green lines represent, you would understand negative pressure.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Basing your knowledge of physics on a picture... I'm not surprised. If you understood what the green lines represent, you would understand negative pressure.

No. The green lines simply represent that *positive pressure* found in the very best vacuums on Earth. The universe is filled with, and permeated by kinetic energy. There is no way to even reach a "zero" pressure state today due to the all the energies that traverse our best vacuums. We live in a positive energy state. Period. The green lines make for blue arrows point *outward*, not inward, and blue arrows on the outside are larger than the blue arrows between the plates.

 

[GeeMack]

No. The green lines simply represent that *positive pressure* found in the very best vacuums on Earth. The universe is filled with, and permeated by kinetic energy. There is no way to even reach a "zero" pressure state today due to the all the energies that traverse our best vacuums. We live in a positive energy state. Period. The green lines make for blue arrows point *outward*, not inward, and blue arrows on the outside are larger than the blue arrows between the plates.

There simply aren't enough laughing dogs.

 

[derekmcd]

You are good for some laughs, Michael. The diagram labels the green lines for you and you still get it wrong.

 

[temporalillusion]

How would one define negative air pressure one wonders...

 

[Ziggurat]

That is absolutely false. In fact it doesn't even require math to demonstrate this idea. You can toss a stone in the air and that act requires *energy* and the stone eventually returns to Earth.

This says nothing about whether or not gravitational potential is negative. Yes, it takes positive energy to go from a negative potential to a less negative potential. Who'da thunk? In fact, try it: what's (-3) - (-5)? Why, it's +2! My goodness! I found a positive difference between two negative numbers!

Can you name a single experiment which is sensitive to the absolute value of potential energy? No, you cannot. This example only deals with changes in potential energy, not with its absolute value. So on what possible basis can you conclude that it cannot be negative? You've simply declared it to be so, but given no mathematical OR physical justification.

Your fixation on math alone is simply a ruse to hide the fact you can't actually demonstrate your claims in empirical experiments.

And your fixation on never doing math is simply a ruse to hide the fact that you can't do math.

Yes I know. The problem is that the moment I do this, it simply justifies in your mind somehow that somehow I'm wrong and it's all about math, not about physics.

No: the problem is that the moment you do this, it will reveal how truly and obviously wrong you are. Force and potential energy have a clear and unambiguous relationship, a relationship which is easy to test, and which is at the heart of that thing you profess to believe so strongly in, conservation of energy. So why won't you calculate the potential energy function for a very simple force? Either you can or you can't.

It's actually much harder to sit here and listen to you bitch and whine about my math skills than it would be to just do the math and be done, but there is a principle at stake here beyond simply math.

Yeah: the principle of not conceding that math actually matters.

You lack *physical justification* or "qualification" for your beliefs.

What, you think that F=-dU/dx lacks physical justification? If so, then you've just thrown conservation of energy out the window. If not, then my arguments about gravitational potential are very much grounded in physical justification.

It's possible of course to do anything with math

No, actually, it isn't. I cannot produce any function I like by integrating a given function once. If I have a given force, there is only one free parameter for its integral, and it's NOT the prefactor or the sign as you claimed. You'd know that if you could do math. But you can't.

 

[Reality Check]

No. The green lines simply represent that *positive pressure* found in the very best vacuums on Earth. The universe is filled with, and permeated by kinetic energy. There is no way to even reach a "zero" pressure state today due to the all the energies that traverse our best vacuums. We live in a positive energy state. Period. The green lines make for blue arrows point *outward*, not inward, and blue arrows on the outside are larger than the blue arrows between the plates.

MM: Look at the diagram. The "green lines" are clearly labeled as vacuum fluctuations, not pressure.
(already stated but maybe repetition will make you actually read the diagram or the Wikipedia article).

Note that it is the net force (and so the net pressure) on the plates that is either negative or positive. The first case is the classic Casimir effect that has been extensively confirmed through experiments. The second case usually involves fluids instead of metallic plates. I believe the recent experiments have measured the positive Casimir effect.

 

[Michael Mozina]

How would one define negative air pressure one wonders...

One does indeed wonder.

Keep in mind that the very *best* vacuums on Earth don't even remove all the air from the chamber. There are always atoms left in the chamber. The subatomic realm also carries kinetic energy. The kinetic energy of the vacuum "pushes" the plates together, and no part of the vacuum can or does contain 'zero" pressure, let alone *negative pressure*.

 

[Tubbythin]

No, you don't know, so I'll just spell it out for you. If you were correct, those little blue arrows would be pointing inward toward the opposite plate.

So rather than attempt to show a fault in the theory, rather than show a fault in the mathematics, rather than show a fault in the large amount of experimental evidence that supports the theory, your entire defence basically rests on "this uncaptioned figure in wikipedia looks like it might vaguely agree with me". That is the best argument you have?

And that will probably forever be true because our best vacuums cannot and do not remove even every atom from a 'vacuum", let alone all the other forms of energy that blow through the whole Earth every day.

So, these cannot account for the Casimir effect.

You're now misrepresenting QM. Look at the direction of inside arrows very carefully. It is a positive kinetic energy state that we live in.

Yes, it really is me and the whole of the physics community who is misrepresenting physics and only Michael Mozina who has it right. Even though he has no theory, no maths and no evidence to support him, he think a wikipedia diagram supports his case so he must be right. Why don't you write to PRL and explain to them how Lamoreaux's 1997 paper was wrong because of a diagram in wikipedia?

All you are doing is pointing out to the world that you didn't even look at, nor consider the explanation given on Wiki. It's actually quite accurate, but it doesn't support your case as the inside arrows of the diagram demonstrate in vivid color.

If you bothered to read the article you would see it does, in fact, entirely support my case. Or you could read the proper research papers on this? Hmm?

 

[Michael Mozina]

MM: Look at the diagram. The "green lines" are clearly labeled as vacuum fluctuations, not pressure.

The only difference here is at the level of QM it's simply "subatomic kinetic energy". The "fluctuations" as you call them are due to the fact that no vacuum is devoid of *all energy*, and they never will be. There is no "negative pressure" inside even the very best vacuums on Earth, and at the subatomic level, there is an enormous amount of kinetic energy in motion even in the best of vacuums.

Note that it is the net force

Where is this "net force" you keep mentioning coming from in your opinion? You do realize that no vacuum on Earth has ever had every single atom removed from the chamber, right? You do realize that there is a net positive amount of kinetic energy in motion flying right through that vacuum chamber, correct?

 

[temporalillusion]

Keep in mind that the very *best* vacuums on Earth don't even remove all the air from the chamber. There are always atoms left in the chamber. The subatomic realm also carries kinetic energy. The kinetic energy of the vacuum "pushes" the plates together, and no part of the vacuum can or does contain 'zero" pressure, let alone *negative pressure*.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

Are you saying that the atoms left in the chamber push on the plates? If so, why would they push only on the outside of the plates? The surface area of the plates is the same on each side of the plate. By this logic, the more atoms in the chamber the more pressure there should be! You could run this experiment yourself and overturn the Casimir Effect! You'd be famous.

How can vacuum have kinetic energy? Do you have proof of this?

If it does, my previous argument still holds, why is the kinetic energy from the vacuum greater on one side of the plates than the other?

My question still remains, how would you define negative air pressure? How does a wing work? Answer those and you'll have an idea of why the zone between the plates is negative pressure.

The pressure in between the plates is less than the pressure everywhere else. I guess you could say that the pressure between the plates is zero and the pressure everywhere else in the universe increases.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So rather than attempt to show a fault in the theory,

I just showed you the *major* flaw in his theory. It's not a mathematical flaw. That's what you seem to be ignoring with a handwave.

rather than show a fault in the mathematics,

Not every single flaw takes place at the level of mathematics. You keep insisting this *must* be the case, whereas Guth's major "flaw" was actually conceptual, and "physical' in nature. There is no such thing as a "negative pressure". No such thing exists in nature. The best we could ever achieve is a "zero" pressure, but the kinetic energy in motion flowing through everything prohibits us from ever achieving a zero energy state.

rather than show a fault in the large amount of experimental evidence that supports the theory,

You folks can evidently not tell the difference between pure observation and controlled experimentation.

your entire defence basically rests on "this uncaptioned figure in wikipedia looks like it might vaguely agree with me". That is the best argument you have?

Er, no. Unless you can demonstrate any of these casmir "tests" took place is a negative pressure scenario, Guth's plan isn't going to fly, and the Casmir effect isn't going to save you because that is simply due to the kinetic energy in motion that exists in our universe today. It has nothing to do with "negative pressure". Guth needs "negative pressure". That's impossible.

So, these cannot account for the Casimir effect.

It's typically done with VP's.

Yes, it really is me and the whole of the physics community who is misrepresenting physics and only Michael Mozina who has it right.

Er, no. Only cosmologists seem confused actually.

If you bothered to read the article you would see it does, in fact, entirely support my case. Or you could read the proper research papers on this? Hmm?

What "proper research" has demonstrated the existence of "negative pressure"?

The very best vacuums on the planet are *physically incapable* of creating even a "zero pressure' environment. Nowhere in space is there even a "zero pressure" environment because light and neutrinos and all sorts of particles flow though space. It isn't "empty" and it never will be. The best you might hope to ever achieve is a "zero pressure" scenario, and no vacuum will *ever* contain "negative pressure", and Guth's whole paper relies upon this single premise.

 

[Michael Mozina]

How can vacuum have kinetic energy? Do you have proof of this?

Ask yourself this:

How can the vacuum *not* have kinetic energy flowing through it when *trillions of neutrinos* pour through it, each and every second? Which vacuum on Earth ever created a "zero pressure" vacuum?

 

[temporalillusion]

I can't even tell what the words you are using mean...

You talk about atmospheric pressure, vacuum "pressure", and some kind of kinetic energy pressure as if they're all the same thing. Plus how can trillions of neutrinos exert any pressure if they don't interact with the matter they are passing through? And why would neutrinos transfer their kinetic energy onto one side of the plates and not the other?

Are you saying that the atoms left in the chamber push on the plates? If so, why would they push only on the outside of the plates? The surface area of the plates is the same on each side of the plate. By this logic, the more atoms in the chamber the more pressure there should be! You could run this experiment yourself and overturn the Casimir Effect! You'd be famous.

If it does, my previous argument still holds, why is the kinetic energy from the vacuum greater on one side of the plates than the other?

My question still remains, how would you define negative air pressure? How does a wing work? Answer those and you'll have an idea of why the zone between the plates is negative pressure.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You are good for some laughs, Michael. The diagram labels the green lines for you and you still get it wrong.

Derek I know there is hope for you. There is no way you can justify any sort of notion of "negative pressure" in a vacuum. It's never going to happen. Every vacuum on Earth has *TRILLIONS AND TRILLIONS AND TRILLIONS* of particles flowing though it. There is nothing about "space" that is "empty". It's kinetic energy in motion.

At the level of QM this kinetic energy in motion is simply subatomic "pressure" with massive amounts of energy in motion. There is no "empty" vacuum, and no way to create a "negative pressure" as Guth requires to make his theory work. It won't fly and it cannot ever fly because no vacuum has "negative pressure", and even at the subatomic scale, particles are simply in motion carrying kinetic energy all over the place. The plates simply get "pushed together". There is no "negative pressure" (and these are the terms Guth uses) in a vacuum. His theory is DOA.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I can't even tell what the words you are using mean...

My meaning is quite simple. A "pure vacuum" would be devoid of all energy flows and all atoms and all particles of every size and shape and energy state.

You talk about atmospheric pressure, vacuum "pressure", and some kind of kinetic energy pressure as if they're all the same thing.

They aren't exactly the same of course but one must recognize that the flow of energy through everything is constant and continuous.

Plus how can trillions of neutrinos exert any pressure if they don't interact with the matter they are passing through?

Well, how can I tell they don't interact "gravitationally" in some way, or *never* interact with any of atoms in the plates?

And why would neutrinos transfer their kinetic energy onto one side of the plates and not the other?

It need not necessarily be "neutrinos" that transfer the kinetic energy. The "standard" explanation in QM is VP's causing "pressure" in the chamber. I tend to think of it as "energy in motion", but the effect is the same.

Are you saying that the atoms left in the chamber push on the plates? If so, why would they push only on the outside of the plates?

The plates being in close proximity would create more "pressure" on the outside surfaces and the blocking effect from one plate or the other would lead to a "lower" pressure between the plates than on the outside of the plates.

My question still remains, how would you define negative air pressure?

My answer is that you cannot define such a thing. We can remove all the air, but once it is all gone, we have only achieved "zero pressure" from air. We can't even do that in the very best chambers on Earth.

There cannot *ever* be negative pressure inside of a vacuum chamber. We cannot even create a "zero pressure" vacuum and no such thing exists in nature today.

Think about it. Every second trillions of neutrinos pass through you. You can even "feel" photons of certain wavelengths strike your body. We will *never* achieve a "zero kinetic energy" state in any "vacuum" on Earth. It's physically *impossible* to do that. There is no way to even achieve "zero pressure" in a vacuum chamber, and even if every atom was gone, it would only be a zero pressure environment. What would you add or subtract to get "negative pressure" in that chamber?

Guth's whole theory is *predicated* on the idea of a 'negative pressure' in a vacuum and that is a physical impossibility. Even with everything removed, you'd simply reach a "zero pressure" vacuum.

 

[temporalillusion]

Well, how can I tell they don't interact "gravitationally" in some way, or *never* interact with any of atoms in the plates?

They're neutrinos, not interacting is what they're best at. If they were then you'd be able to measure the difference by orienting the plates different ways with respect to the neutrinos from the sun and measuring the difference.

It need not necessarily be "neutrinos" that transfer the kinetic energy. The "standard" explanation in QM is VP's causing "pressure" in the chamber. I tend to think of it as "energy in motion", but the effect is the same.

The effect is the same, but "energy in motion" has no meaning. Can you define it clearly? Where does the energy come from? Where's it moving to? Why is it moving? Why can't you detect that motion by changing the orientation of the plates?

The plates being in close proximity would create more "pressure" on the outside surfaces and the blocking effect from one plate or the other would lead to a "lower" pressure between the plates than on the outside of the plates.

"Blocking effect"? Is that a physics term? Or a new force? Why doesn't this blocking effect happen more if I put the same plates together in an atmosphere, one would think with more atoms to block the effect would be larger!

My answer is that you cannot define such a thing. We can remove all the air, but once it is all gone, we have only achieved "zero pressure" from air. We can't even do that in the very best chambers on Earth.

I'm not talking about negative air pressure in terms of a vacuum, I'm talking about negative air pressure when talking about how a wing flies. Positive and negative air pressure with respect to the ambient pressure. Negative meaning lower than ambient air pressure.

Your graphic has big arrows and little arrows.. what do the big arrows represent?