Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[GeeMack]

But, Michael, you don't even have the math skills necessary to balance your check book. You can't possibly understand what these people are saying to you. And you can't possibly explain to them what the hell you're talking about. Physics is a quantitative science. Numbers, and an understanding of how to use them, are absolutely necessary to communicate the science of physics. So your claim that anyone/everyone else has it wrong is completely unfounded. You'd have to be capable of understanding quantitative to even venture an educated opinion on any of this stuff. You can't. You won't. You lost before you started.

 

[sol invictus]

You still cannot tell the difference between "low pressure" and "negative pressure". Case closed. Dude, not one single arrow points away from any surface of any plate. Get a grip. Your minus sign is simply a "relative number" that the author explained in great detail and that the WIKI article illustrates in color for you, squiggly green lines, blue arrows and the whole nine yards. Wake up and smell the coffee. Your minus sign is a "relative pressure" and still a "positive" number. Look at the the little blue arrows between the plates. They point *INTO* not *AWAY FROM* the plate.

Do you or do you not agree that the formula I quoted is correct?

 

[sol invictus]

How about this part sol, or did you intend to just wallow in denial forever?

Michael, I understand the theory. I can (and have, many times) perform the calculation that leads to the experimentally confirmed prediction of Casimir pressure. I understand that quote completely - I might have said something very similar myself, had I been asked. It's fine, as a quote for the popular press - it gets the basic idea across.

But you seem to have missed one little point, which is rather crucial in this debate - that quote does NOT say whether the pressure is positive on either side. It simply says that the pressure outside is larger than the pressure inside. The pressure inside and outside could be positive - but if so, the outside pressure must be infinite. Or the pressure outside could be zero or negative, and the pressure inside more negative. You can't tell from the quote (and for a very good reason).

Now - do you agree that the wiki formula is correct, or have you flipflopped again?

 

[Perpetual Student]

Do you or do you not agree that the formula I quoted is correct?

I am looking forward to his response.

 

[Reality Check]

Then there is not one point on any surface of any plate that experiences "negative pressure" from the "vacuum". Every single point on every plate experiences "positive pressure" both from the point of view of QM, and from the point of view from atomic pressure since no vacuum in existence can achieve even "zero" pressure.

Case closed.

Case not closed.

The author of the diagram chose to show the forces (not pressures) acting on each side of the plates as a big force outside and a smaller force inside. This was presumably to demonstrate that the force from the vacuum fluctuations between the plates was less than that outside the plates because the fluctuations between the plates are restricted.

Some high school physics for you MM: Forces can be added together to get the net force on the object. The net force normal to surface of the object per area is the pressure.
Add the big blue arrow to the small blue arrow for each plate. The net force on each plate is a big blue arrow pointing away from the inside surface of each plate. Thus negative pressure.

In addition:
Let say that your incorrect interpretation of the diagram and bad use of physics were correct. So we have:
Big blue arrow = big outside pressure.
Little blue arrow = smaller inside pressure.
MM's "pressure" = outside pressure - inside pressure. We are subtracting a smaller number from a bigger number thus we end up with a positive "pressure" (actually a pressure difference but we like MM will ignore this).

Now let use apply MM's understanding of physics to another common situation: a tank of compressed air. The inside pressure is bigger than the outside pressure.
MM's "pressure" = outside pressure - inside pressure. We are subtracting a bigger number from a smaller number thus we end up with a negative "pressure" !

Case closed

 

[Reality Check]

A black hole has zero volume and infinite density, creating what is known as a singularity. Neither anything with infinte density, or a sigularity, or point, has been observed in nature. Nothing infinite has ever been observed in nature. Merely implied by current theories. Again, either you view this as acceptable, or the theory is just inadequate in describing reality and breaks down, and alternatives have to be considered.

You need to revise your physics.
A black hole has a non-zero volume (defined by the event horizon) and thus a non-infinite density.
The current mathematics of black holes breaks down at the center of the black hole leading to a mathematical singularity. This is often stated as the physical singularity having a zero volume and an infinite density. But this is wrong - the volume and density of the physical singularity are unknown.

Everyone knows that the mathematics of General Reltivity is not complete for the region of small distances since it does not include quantum effects. Thus it is expected that future theories will remove the mathematical singularity and thus the physical singularity.

Of course we do not need zero volume or infinite density to have a black hole. All there needs to be is enough mass inside a small enough volume.

Then there is that fact that there are things that we observe in reality that act exactly as we expect black holes to act. The example that you keep on ignoring is Sagittarius A* which is 4.31 million solar masses in a volume with a radius of about Mercury's orbit. This mass does not emit any radiation (it is black). I also have not seen any reported observations of Type I x-ray bursts. This is a characteristic of matter hitting a surface, e.g. they are seen when matter from accrual disks impacts the surface of neutron stars. For some reason any in-falling matter from the accrual disk of Sagittarius A* is not hitting a surface. So either there is no in-falling matter or we have an event horizon.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Quite. The addition might be... well... "QM processes", eh?

No. The QM processes push *INTO* *every single point* of *every single plate*. There is no such thing as 'negative pressure in a vacuum'. There is 'pressure" (positive pressure) in every vacuum.

 

[Michael Mozina]

But, Michael, you don't even have the math skills necessary to balance your check book.

You are a lying sack of ◊◊◊◊. I wrote and sell an accounting program you idiot.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Case not closed.

The author of the diagram chose to show the forces (not pressures) acting on each side of the plates as a big force outside and a smaller force inside.

Then all you have to do is take that "positive force" (arrows point in) and divide it by the *positive area* and you end up with a *POSITIVE PRESSURE* everywhere, on every surface! Even your tank analogy demonstrates your own ignorance of "pressure". You have "positive pressure" on the inside of the tank that is "greater than" the outside pressure, and no region experiences "negative pressure". You really are clueless when it comes to actual physics. Evidently a "minus sign" in a math formula is all that you actually "understand". The physical processes are evidently a complete and total mystery to you.

It is a physical impossibility to achieve even a "zero" "pressure" in any vacuum chamber. Every point on every surface of every object will experience some small amount of 'pressure" even in the very best vacuums we can create, and the best vacuums created by nature. No area of space, and no vacuum on Earth achieves a "zero" pressure due to atoms in the chamber. At the quantum level, the EM fields resonate and also put "force" on the plates. We can divide that force by the area and see that it has *positive pressure* at each point on the plate. There is no point on any plate that experiences "negative pressure". There is simply a 'pressure difference' between the inside and outside of the plates. Period. Case closed.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The 'hoofprints' for inflation are in the CMB and the universe's flatness.

These are simply 'hoofprints" that may or may not come from an invisible unicorn. Don't you think we should at least try to explain that observation with ordinary horses first?

For dark energy it's in several cosmological observations, primarily SN type Ia's.

All that might demonstrate is "acceleration". Ordinary horses can accelerate.

Dark matter has perhaps more footprints than the others.

It's been *presumed* to do things that have never been seen in a lab, and we've spent some pretty big bucks slamming things together in a lab looking for SUSY particles to no avail. That hasn't stopped your industry from assigning them all sorts of non demonstrated "qualities" that they presumably posses. It's like making up "dark elves" and assigning them various qualities without ever once demonstrating they exist.

Now I wouldn't actually necessarily argue that they're metaphorically invisible unicorns, but they're invisible unguligrades of some variety.

Just because you cannot explain the hoofprints does not mean they *must come* from an invisible unicorn. You seem to insist that just because I can't fully explain the hoofprints, I am obligated to *assume* they came from invisible unicorns. I cannot and would not ever make such an assumption, only because I don't know how to explain a given set of hoofprints I might find in nature.

 

[Ziggurat]

You are a lying sack of ◊◊◊◊. I wrote and sell an accounting program you idiot.

My, my, such language.

But really, rather than turn blue swearing, and claim accomplishments you can't actually prove on a message board, why not just show you can do some math?

 

[GeeMack]

You are a lying sack of ◊◊◊◊. I wrote and sell an accounting program you idiot.

Michael, allow me to reiterate. This is very important to the discussion at hand and the topic of this thread. You don't have the understanding of mathematics necessary to intelligently discuss physics. Nothing you have said so far in this thread, and in thousands of postings on other forums over many years, is any more than unsubstantiated opinion without the quantitative descriptions to back it up. Numbers, Michael, are critical to the science of physics. It is the language of physics. You can't do math, and without it, you can't understand physics.

And that's why, as mentioned by DeiRenDopa and others, the question of "Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?" was answered within the first couple of pages of the thread, yet you're still here spinning your wheels. You have a wild misunderstanding of the terminology of physics, your own private glossary that you can't or won't define for anyone else, a whole bunch of sciency sounding babble, and a complete inability to grasp the meaning and importance of all things quantitative. You're wrong. You've been wrong since page two.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Michael, I understand the theory.

No you don't. You understand how to mechanically run through the math, but you don't understand the physical process at all. You seem to believe that a minus sign in your math formula demonstrates "negative pressure in a vacuum", but all it demonstrates is a "pressure difference" between the inside and outside of the plates, much like RC's pressurized tank analogy.

I can (and have, many times) perform the calculation that leads to the experimentally confirmed prediction of Casimir pressure.

Whop-dee-doo. If only you understood the physics too.

I understand that quote completely - I might have said something very similar myself, had I been asked. It's fine, as a quote for the popular press - it gets the basic idea across.

It not only gets the idea across, it's highly accurate too, and completely congruent with the drawing on WIKI. Why is that sol?

But you seem to have missed one little point, which is rather crucial in this debate - that quote does NOT say whether the pressure is positive on either side.

That has to be the single *worst* rationalization I've seen. It *presumes* a "smaller pressure' and a "higher pressure", as in two positive numbers. If you have any doubts, look at the drawing. The arrows all point *into* the plates, not *away from* the plates, not even on the inside of the plates. The smaller blue arrow suggests there is less force on the inside and more of it on the outside. Nowhere do the arrows point *away from* any surface of any plate.

It simply says that the pressure outside is larger than the pressure inside.

Sure, much like RC's tank analogy. So what? Nowhere in any of these analogies do the arrows point away from any surface. The arrows point *IN*.

The pressure inside and outside could be positive - but if so, the outside pressure must be infinite.

This only demonstrates your basic problem sol. You are insisting that nature *must and does* comply and conform to your math formula, whereas in the real world, there could never be an "infinite" pressure or an infinite attraction between those plates due to the "imperfections' of the real world. You've yet to provide one empirical experiment to demonstrate that nature complies with your formula all the way up to an infinite number. Let's see your lab work sol. What's the most "pressure" ever registered in one of these experiments? Was it closer to +-1ATM or infinity?

Or the pressure outside could be zero or negative, and the pressure inside more negative. You can't tell from the quote (and for a very good reason).

Could be? Look at the blue arrows sol. They all point into the plate. There are no "could be's". There is only one possibility since the chamber has "pressure" at the level of atoms, let alone "force" from the EM field that pushes *AGAINST* all the surfaces.

Now - do you agree that the wiki formula is correct, or have you flipflopped again?

The formula is only a gross approximation of the pressure *difference* and it is an oversimplification of the actual physical process. There's nothing wrong with the WIKI article, although I could nitpick a word or two. The basic explanation is fine from a laymen's perspective. The physics explanation I cited is a better explanation of this process at the level of QM than the verbal explanation provided by WIKI. The drawings on WIKI however would suggest to me that the creator of those diagrams certainly understood his stuff at the level of QM and it jives with the other reference I cited just perfectly. The bubble drawing one was good too by the way.

Dude, the blue arrows all point in. If you prefer to see it as force, divide it by the area and you still get a number that points *in* not *away from* any surface of any plate. The *pressure* is "positive" on every side of every plate, just "more positive" on some sides than others. It really is no different than RC's tank analogy. Evidently you folks believe that if you take two positive pressures, and subtract one from the other in a way that gives you a minus sign, that you've discovered "negative pressure in a vacuum".

 

[Michael Mozina]

Michael, allow me to reiterate. This is very important to the discussion at hand and the topic of this thread. You don't have the understanding of mathematics necessary to intelligently discuss physics.

You are a complete sleaze artist who is evidently incapable of having an "intelligent discussion" on any topic with someone you disagree with. You don't debate by any rules at all. You attack the individual not the scientific points. You aren't capable of understanding physics, or anything but math evidently and you are a first class jerk.

This whole conversation isn't even related to understanding the math in the final analysis. All you're doing is subtracting *one positive pressure from another*. It's not complicated math. The complication arises in *understanding* what that negative number means. It does not mean that you have discovered "negative pressure in a vacuum". It means you have discovered a "pressure difference" between the outside and the inside of the plates.

Get over yourself. Whatever superior math skills you may have are insignificant because you have no clue how that number applies at the level of physics. You've got an *oversimplified* conceptual understanding of this process because all you know is math. If it's a minus sign it must be "negative pressure in a vacuum".

 

[Michael Mozina]

My, my, such language.

But really, rather than turn blue swearing, and claim accomplishments you can't actually prove on a message board, why not just show you can do some math?

Why should I do math when this is not a math problem to begin with? You (collectively) can't seem to grasp the difference between a "relative difference" and a "negative pressure". I'm sick and tired of the personal attacks and the smug BS. Math isn't your problem. Physics is your problem. You have no clue what is occuring at the level of physics. All you "understand" is that there's a minus sign in the math formula.

 

[Michael Mozina]

FYI Zig,

I don't really have any problems with anyone's "style" with the exception of GeeMack. He's made no attempt here at honest dialog, nor are his points focused on science. His whole "kill the messenger" style is simply a dishonest debate tactic from start to finish.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Is it not true that the pressure outside is zero (or nearly so) so that the negative pressure inside results in the surfaces being pushed together?

No. It is true that the force-pressure on the inside and outside of the plates is greater than zero everywhere. The arrows all point in, not away from the plates, and the arrows on the outside of the plate are larger than the ones between the plates.

 

[Ziggurat]

Why should I do math when this is not a math problem to begin with? You (collectively) can't seem to grasp the difference between a "relative difference" and a "negative pressure".

You keep saying this, but that doesn't make it true. You know what might make it true? If you could demonstrate that the absolute pressure is positive. The fact of the matter is, measurements are only capable of measuring a pressure difference. So how do you know what the absolute pressure is? Well, you need a model which predicts the absolute pressure, and which is shown to agree with measurements. We have such a model. But using that model to predict the absolute pressure requires doing math, something you can't do. And if you did, well, you might be surprised at the result.

I'm sick and tired of the personal attacks and the smug BS.

And I'm tired of the constant evasions and the refusal to actually attempt to understand the physics. I'm tired of someone who is clearly out of their league insisting upon the ignorance of professionals in the field (and yes, there are professional physicists in this thread) who have demonstrated their competence. I'm tired of your arrogance, Michael, an arrogance founded upon ignorance. So don't complain to me, Michael, because I don't want to hear it.

Math isn't your problem. Physics is your problem. You have no clue what is occuring at the level of physics. All you "understand" is that there's a minus sign in the math formula.

No, Michael. Physics is not our problem, it's your problem. You are the one who can't understand the difference between a definition of a quantity and an equation of state. That's not a math error, that's a physics error, and an incredibly fundamental one at that. You're also the one who can't understand that physics became a quantitative science centuries ago, and that equations are in fact far more meaningful physically than any picture you can draw.

I've tried to lead you through the actual arguments, to demonstrate the logic behind the concept of negative pressure, and EVERY SINGLE TIME you refuse to answer questions, follow the argument, and divert the topic. I'm not asking you to agree with everything I say, but you clearly aren't even interested in understanding your opponent's position.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You need to revise your physics.
A black hole has a non-zero volume (defined by the event horizon) and thus a non-infinite density.

FYI, I tend agree with you on this topic. Most "black hole" critics are fixated on the term "singularity" due to the divide by zero problem whereas the density of a mass object may not need not need to achieve "infinite" density to form an event horizon.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You keep saying this, but that doesn't make it true. You know what might make it true? If you could demonstrate that the absolute pressure is positive. The fact of the matter is, measurements are only capable of measuring a pressure difference. So how do you know what the absolute pressure is?

I know that there is no possibility of removing every atom from the chamber so I *know for a fact* that the "pressure" in the chamber is greater than zero.

I also know for a fact that the force on the outside of the plates is "greater than" the force that pushes against the inside of the plates. Zig, there is no possibility for the pressure to be anything other than a positive number on every surface of every plate. It's just not even possible to achieve a "zero pressure' in that chamber, let alone a "negative one". All we might do is create a "pressure difference" between the outside and inside of the plates that is *necessarily* greater than zero everywhere, including the space between the plates.

All the blue arrows necessarily point *into* not *away from* the plates. The "pressure" due to atoms is "greater than zero" and the force or pressure provided by the EM field is also "positive" at every point on every surface.

Physics is on my side here folks. I didn't create those drawings or write that explanation. They were done by someone *other than* Michael Mozina.