Split Thread Michael Mozina's thread on Dark Matter, Inflation and Cosmology

schrodingasdawg said:
Hello.

I think Mr. Mozina might be a bit confused regarding the origin of the Casimir effect. The effect is not due to particles bouncing off the surface of plates.

In the quantum theory of electrodynamics, each mode of the electromagnetic field is treated as an independent quantum harmonic oscillator. Excitations from the ground state of each mode are, of course, photons: the carrier particles of the EM force. However, even in the absence of photons, the electric and magnetic fields associated with each mode aren't everywhere zero, and the energy of the mode is likewise not zero. So each mode of the EM field carries energy in the absence of photons.

The Casimir force is calculated from a rather simplistic approximation. Two neutrally charged conducting plates are placed parallel to each other in a vacuum. The plates are assumed to be perfectly conducting, so the EM field must be zero on the surface of the plates. The modes of the EM field are thus functions which are sinusoidal in the space between the plates or outside the plates, but zero on the plates. Configurations with different distances between the plates result in different possible modes, and thus different energies. In fact, closer plates result in lower EM field energies, so the plates experience an attractive force.

The Casimir force is due to what is happening between the plates, and not what is outside of them. They are being pulled towards each other, not pushed. That is why the pressure between them is considered to be negative, as opposed to a vacuum-sealed container which is held together by the positive pressure of the Earth's atmosphere.

The Casimir effect itself might be confusing, and it seems the reason it was brought up (sorry if I'm mistaken in this; I'm too lazy to read all 14 pages of the discussion) was because of difficulty in understanding the concept of negative pressure. A simpler example, I think, would involve a capacitor carrying charge. The two parallel capacitor plates carry opposite electric charges and are attracted to each other. This force is the Coulomb force (which can be attributed theoretically to the exchange of photons), and it is attractive: it results in the plates being pulled towards each other, and is not due to the plates being pushed together by particles on the outside. So the plates experience a negative pressure from the Coulomb force, which is usually counteracted by the positive pressure of a dielectric keeping the plates apart.

Hopefully this can clear at least a little bit up for Mr. Mozina.
Click to expand...


Welcome. Great post.
 
MM:
You have agreed that the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate that requires an energy which is the mass equivalent of 18 times all the baryonic matter in the universe. So, if such a massive amount of energy existed in the form of EM fields throughout all space, why would it not be the most starkly visible stuff we see? Just think if we had an EM field just outside our solar system with the energy equivalent of the earth? E = mc2 -- whew! How massive would it be and how profound would its effects be? How could such an enormous cosmic manifestation be so hard to detect? Again, this is a naive question from a layman.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
[*]The acceleration of galaxies exists.
[*]The cause of the acceleration exists.
[*]We call that cause dark energy.
[*]Thus dark energy exists.
Click to expand...

Good grief. Talk about a circular "dark energy of the gaps" argument.....

The acceleration of the galaxies exists.
The cause of the acceleration exists
I call that cause "God energy".
Thus "God energy" exists.

Do you see any problem with that logic?
 
Perpetual Student said:
MM:
You have agreed that the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate that requires an energy which is the mass equivalent of 18 times all the baryonic matter in the universe. So, if such a massive amount of energy existed in the form of EM fields throughout all space, why would it not be the most starkly visible stuff we see?
Click to expand...

IMO it certainly is the most starkly visible stuff that we see. Those coronal loops stick out like a giant sore thumb in every high energy wavelength in the spectrum. Those discharges in our atmosphere happen not just on Earth but in the atmosphere of every planet in the solar system. The presence of EM fields in the universe is obvious IMO. I swear, once you "switch perspectives", the whole thing makes complete scientific sense.

Just think if we had an EM field just outside our solar system with the energy equivalent of the earth?
Click to expand...

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/8...-solar-system-voyager-2-finds-magnetic-fluff/

We certainly observe "magnetic fields". It isn't of course a sterile "magnetic" anything, it's an "electromagnetic current flow" that generates those magnetic fields.

E = mc2 -- whew! How massive would it be and how profound would its effects be?
Click to expand...

Those effects on the solar atmosphere look pretty unmistakable from where I sit.

How could such an enormous cosmic manifestation be so hard to detect? Again, this is a naive question from a layman.
Click to expand...

Your question is a fair one, but the answer IMO is that we do see an enormous cosmic manifestation of these fields. Everything that the mainstream now chalks up to something 'magnetic' like that 'magnetic fluff' is actually an "ELECTROmagnetic process" that ultimately results in a "magnetic field". That magnetic field is directly related to the electrical current flow of the universe, including the current flow inside each large physical object in the universe. Planets have them, sun's have them, virtually all large objects in space have an ELECTRO-(generated by electricity)-magnetic field. How can you miss that? ;)
 
Cuddles said:
Well, that explains a lot. When you're dealing with someone who is surprised that gravity causes motion and that things can collide, there's really very little point in expecting their opinions on physics to make sense.
Click to expand...

It's not a surprise that gravity causes motion that generates collisions. The "hard to swallow" aspect of your claim is the presumed uniformity and volume of material experience heating. Each atom in the ICM would need to experience a cosmic ray "hit" every second to sustain 100,000K temperatures indefinitely. You'd need a constant shower of "current flow' to sustain it. Now of course a high speed ion is in fact a type of "current flow'.
 
Michael Mozina said:
It's not a surprise that gravity causes motion that generates collisions.
Click to expand...

Then I can't help wondering why you said that it is. I quoted the exact post you answered and your exact response.

The "hard to swallow" aspect of your claim
Click to expand...

Perhaps you would care to point out the post in this thread in which I make a claim? Surely you wouldn't be so dishonest as to attribute things to me that I have never said?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Welcome to the board and welcome to the discussion. You certainly stepped into a very long and involved debate. :) I don't blame you one bit for not reading the whole soap opera from start to finish. ;)
Click to expand...

Thanks. Glad to know there's no pressure on me.

The original debate began with a critique of Guth's original inflation paper and his specific claim about the "false vacuum" having "negative pressure".
Click to expand...

I'm going to admit ignorance to inflation, Guth, and pretty much all of cosmology (aside from a basic understanding of general relativity). I prefer not to take a stance on things I don't understand, so I'll keep my mouth shut on these things, but I'd like to defend the concept of a false vacuum (I'm assuming here that you put the phrase in scare quotes because you are suspect of it).

There are two different, contradictory definitions of vacuum in field theories. The first is the absolute lowest-energy state that can be assumed in a particular model: e.g. a state where there are no photons in the EM field. The state is usually assumed to be unique (it may not exactly be, as in the case of the Higgs theory, but all the possible vacuums in the Higgs theory are the same energy). Another definition of vacuum is a classical solution to a field theory which cannot be transitioned to from another such vacuum by quantum excitations. In some cases (I don't know any off the top of my head, sorry), one vacuum may have more energy than another. For an analogy to basic maths, the first definition of vacuum would be a field configuration that absolutely minimizes the energy, while the second definition would be a field configuration that locally minimizes the energy.

Since there aren't really any good words to distinguish between vacuums of the first definition and vacuums of the second, the phrase "false vacuum" is used to refer to vacuums by the second definition that are not vacuums by the first. That is, a false vacuum is a state that looks like a vacuum from the perspective of small perturbations, but isn't really the lowest-energy state that a physical system can assume.

I think that it was Ed that originally suggested that the Casmir force could be/was an attraction process between the plates themselves. I agreed with him even then that this was a possibility due to some type of lattice attraction between the plates and and EM attraction between atoms.
Click to expand...

The electromagnetic properties of the material are important. The plates need to expel electric fields, which is why the Casimir effect requires the plates be conducting. Besides that, nothing really needs to be known about the material. And this effect is distinct from van der Waals forces, i.e. the Casimir effect isn't due to the electrostatic attraction of temporary dipole moments in the lattices of the plates.

As an aside, the concept of negative vacuum pressure (something not related to the Casimir effect) is admittedly confusing. The best I can do is to offer an analogy. Fluids such as water or air have a positive pressure which results from the molecules making up the fluid repelling each other. In general relativity, there are solutions to Einstein's field equations that give a metric in the case of a homogeneous fluid: solutions that depend on the density and pressure of the fluid. A "negative pressure" substance would then be anything for which behaves, according to the Einstein field equations, as a fluid which has negative pressure.

In general relativity, the vacuum is space absent of matter, i.e. the stress-energy tensor is zero everywhere. However, the field equations have a term with the cosmological constant. The field equations with a positive cosmological constant look like the field equations with no constant but a negative-pressure fluid. However, there is no actual "matter" present, so the vacuum is considered to have this negative pressure.

In GR, with a cosmological constant term, the negative pressure does not cause objects to repel. Rather, it causes the rate of spatial expansion to increase. Look up the Friedmann equations and the Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) metric. This is in contrast to positive pressure, which causes the rate of spatial expansion to decrease.

Anyway, apologies if this is an inadequate explanation, I only know the basics of GR. But at the same time feel free to ask for clarification.
 
Cuddles said:
Then I can't help wondering why you said that it is. I quoted the exact post you answered and your exact response.
Click to expand...

Yes, but I also explained my answer. You seemed to fixate a single sentence rather than the full explanation.

Perhaps you would care to point out the post in this thread in which I make a claim? Surely you wouldn't be so dishonest as to attribute things to me that I have never said?
Click to expand...

The term "you" was in reference to the mainstream claim/belief. My apologies if it doesn't apply to you personally. ;)
 
Cuddles said:
Perhaps you would care to point out the post in this thread in which I make a claim? Surely you wouldn't be so dishonest as to attribute things to me that I have never said?
Click to expand...


Speaking directly to Michael's position that you've made a claim, obviously his honesty, or lack of it, is integral to the credibility of everything he might say in this discussion, especially since most of his arguments are riddled with unevidenced assertions. Michael is a proven liar, so you'd be wrong to seriously consider the possibility that he wouldn't be dishonest.

Skimming some of this historical material will show that his arguments come from a general position of incredulity, ignorance, and lies...

Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum...
8 pages, 30 posts per page...

13 pages, 30 posts per page...

14 pages, 30 posts per page...

12 pages, 30 posts per page...

Sockpuppet: ManInTheMirror - 4 pages, 30 posts per page...

Sockpuppet: ManInTheMirror - 36 pages, 30 posts per page...

Einstein@Home forum at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee...

Over 3,000 postings over at the Skeptic Friends Network...
 
Michael Mozina said:
Somewhere you're trying to convert kinetic energy from an unspecific type of matter (ion? electron?) into "heat", but even such a process would only "heat" a relatively stationary atom for so long before it started releasing heat again.
Click to expand...

Sorry, MM, this is standard thermodynamics. The infalling gas is hydrogen. From an energy balance standpoint it doesn't matter if it's initially gas or plasma.

The conversion of gravitational kinetic energy to heat is so simple and familiar that I can't imagine anyone objecting to it. That's what happens to kinetic energy when something is moving fast and then slows down.

You are mistaken about how long a "relatively long time" is; when mainstream astronomers add up the numbers it basically works. (IIRC, this gravitational heating is something like 2/3 of the heat budget, with the rest coming from supernova shocks and AGN jet kinetic energies.)

Even if we accept all of your math related to "dark energies", for all any of you know, it is in fact an EM field that causes this tiny "acceleration"
Click to expand...

No, I know for a fact that it is not an EM field. I know the properties of EM fields---there are no unknowns, it's just Maxwell, right? I know the equations-of-motion of the large structures (the equations in which we see an acceleration term). The laws of EM can not have generated those motions.

I'm not saying "EM can't accelerate things". EM acceleration makes the solar wind; EM fields bend the paths of the Van Allen belt particles; EM fields shuffle the ionization currents around in a plasma globe; EM fields can put torque on a motor coil. Those are things EM can do, and there is no doubt that I can write down the complete equations for the E and B vector fields, derive the rho and j sources, and show that the EM forces are the forces that cause those motions. You CANNOT write down any possible E, B, rho, j, for which the EM force laws correspond to the observed ongoing-cosmic-acceleration force laws.

(And I don't mean "you, MM, cannot ..." although this is obviously true. I mean nobody can; it's impossible.)

Do you want to prove me wrong? Give a counterexample. Give me the explicit form of a charge field rho(r,t) and vector electric current field j(r,t) which, according to the normal EM field laws, undergoes accelerating isotropic expansion. I think the impolite term is "Put up or shut up".
 
Michael Mozina said:
Each atom in the ICM would need to experience a cosmic ray "hit" every second to sustain 100,000K temperatures indefinitely .
Click to expand...

Good heavens.

a) Conduction. You forgot about conduction.
b) "Every second", eh? Not every microsecond? Not every 10^7 years? Do you want to show us the careful calculation you used to choose that number? No, you just picked a random number that you guessed would make your argument sound good.

ETA: c) Of all the people in the world who could forget that the ICM is 100% ionized and think about it in terms of atoms ...
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
IMO it certainly is the most starkly visible stuff that we see. Those coronal loops stick out like a giant sore thumb in every high energy wavelength in the spectrum. Those discharges in our atmosphere happen not just on Earth but in the atmosphere of every planet in the solar system. The presence of EM fields in the universe is obvious IMO. I swear, once you "switch perspectives", the whole thing makes complete scientific sense.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/8...-solar-system-voyager-2-finds-magnetic-fluff/

We certainly observe "magnetic fields". It isn't of course a sterile "magnetic" anything, it's an "electromagnetic current flow" that generates those magnetic fields.
...
Those effects on the solar atmosphere look pretty unmistakable from where I sit.
...
Your question is a fair one, but the answer IMO is that we do see an enormous cosmic manifestation of these fields. Everything that the mainstream now chalks up to something 'magnetic' like that 'magnetic fluff' is actually an "ELECTROmagnetic process" that ultimately results in a "magnetic field". That magnetic field is directly related to the electrical current flow of the universe, including the current flow inside each large physical object in the universe. Planets have them, sun's have them, virtually all large objects in space have an ELECTRO-(generated by electricity)-magnetic field. How can you miss that? ;)
Click to expand...

Again, you refer to our atmosphere, the solar atmosphere and the solar system. These local manifestations of EM stuff are small potatoes compared to the staggering effects I would expect from EM fields having energy 18 times all the baryonic matter in the universe. Sorry, your arguments are not even close to convincing for this layman. But, as many have pointed out without quantifiable models you have nothing. What would cosmic EM fields of the magnitude we are discussing look like? Do you have mathematical models to understand the effects of such entities? We know so much about EM fields -- I believe modeling your hypothesis should be quite feasible.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Good grief. Talk about a circular "dark energy of the gaps" argument.....

The acceleration of the galaxies exists.
The cause of the acceleration exists
I call that cause "God energy".
Thus "God energy" exists.

Do you see any problem with that logic?
Click to expand...

There is no problem with that logic. It is the same as
  • The acceleration of the galaxies exists.
  • The cause of the acceleration exists
  • I call that cause "Satan energy".
  • Thus "Satan energy" exists.
or
  • The acceleration of the galaxies exists.
  • The cause of the acceleration exists
  • I call that cause "gray energy".
  • Thus "gray energy" exists.
or
  • The acceleration of the galaxies exists.
  • The cause of the acceleration exists
  • I call that cause "X".
  • Thus "X" exists.
If you were an idiot then you would think that changing the phrase "dark energy" to "god energy" has an impact on the logic.
 
Last edited:
schrodingasdawg said:
Thanks. I'll try to keep my posts of decent quality.
Click to expand...

Your posts aren't just of a 'decent' quality, they're awesome IMO. :)

For me to even do your posts justice, I'm going to need some uninterrupted time. Don't take it personally If I don't respond to your full post till after work hours today. It's pretty hectic here today and I'd like to keep my responses at least "in the ballpark".

I think we are going to get along famously by the way. :) I'm glad you joined the conversation.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Good grief. Talk about a circular "dark energy of the gaps" argument.....

The acceleration of the galaxies exists.
The cause of the acceleration exists
I call that cause "God energy".
Thus "God energy" exists.

Do you see any problem with that logic?
Click to expand...

More hilarity. Its a definition Michael. Its meant to be circular.

If we define dark energy as "the cause of the accelerated expansion of the Universe", then, if the Universe's expansion is accelerating the only possible way that dark energy could not exist is if the accelerated expansion is acausal. If you cannot understand this then its not just basic physics you have extreme difficulties, its the basics of the English language.
 
ben m said:
Do you want to prove me wrong? Give a counterexample. Give me the explicit form of a charge field rho(r,t) and vector electric current field j(r,t) which, according to the normal EM field laws, undergoes accelerating isotropic expansion. I think the impolite term is "Put up or shut up".
Click to expand...

Seconded.
 
I'm not saying "EM can't accelerate things". EM acceleration makes the solar wind; EM fields bend the paths of the Van Allen belt particles; EM fields shuffle the ionization currents around in a plasma globe; EM fields can put torque on a motor coil. Those are things EM can do, and there is no doubt that I can write down the complete equations for the E and B vector fields, derive the rho and j sources, and show that the EM forces are the forces that cause those motions. You CANNOT write down any possible E, B, rho, j, for which the EM force laws correspond to the observed ongoing-cosmic-acceleration force laws.


(And I don't mean "you, MM, cannot ..." although this is obviously true. I mean nobody can; it's impossible.)

Do you want to prove me wrong? Give a counterexample. Give me the explicit form of a charge field rho(r,t) and vector electric current field j(r,t) which, according to the normal EM field laws, undergoes accelerating isotropic expansion. I think the impolite term is "Put up or shut up". _________ben m
Click to expand...
Yes, this question gets to the heart of the matter! MM, Do you have a convincing mathematical model? Or -- perhaps an outline for an approach to develop such a model?
 
geemack said:
Skimming some of this historical material will show that his arguments come from a general position of incredulity, ignorance, and lies...

bad astronomy and universe today forum...
8 pages, 30 posts per page...

13 pages, 30 posts per page...

14 pages, 30 posts per page...

12 pages, 30 posts per page...

sockpuppet: Maninthemirror - 4 pages, 30 posts per page...

sockpuppet: Maninthemirror - 36 pages, 30 posts per page...

einstein@home forum at the university of wisconsin at milwaukee...

over 3,000 postings over at the skeptic friends network...
Click to expand...

yikes!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom