Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[Tubbythin]

Er let's see you do it without a second plate anyone? Guth didn't have a second plate to work with, and the vacuum pressure never goes below zero in a Casimir experiment.

That would be shifting the goal posts on your part. You said: "Too bad you can't demonstrate that "negative pressure from a vacuum" claim in the lab."

 

[ben m]

Er let's see you do it without a second plate anyone? Guth didn't have a second plate to work with, and the vacuum pressure never goes below zero in a Casimir experiment.

Michael: the force on the plates shows the presence of energy density in the empty space between the plates.

Energy densities serve as sources in GR.

Calculate the energy density between the plates and try to put it into GR alongside the other energy sources.

(Of course you won't do it, you have no idea how to do it. So stop complaining that we're doing it wrong.)

 

[Tubbythin]

Because it is physically incapable of holding a -E!

It doesn't need a -E.

It doesn't matter with is 1 and which is 2. You only have *1* mass blob thingy object in a vacuum to work with, not two.

I quite literally haven't the faintest clue what you are talking about here.

I've done that already a bunch of times. How did you intend to hold negative kinetic energy (-E) in the vacuum?

I don't.

What would you even add or subtract from a "perfect" vacuum to hold 'negative pressure/kinetic energy'?

I don't want to hold negative kinetic energy. I must have said this ten times by now. Nor do I need to add or subtract anything (not really anyway). What I need is for the quantum vacuum to act in such a way that dE/dV is positive.

I relate to it having a constant positive amount of kinetic energy. How do you relate to it with billion upon billions of neutrinos flowing through it?

That didn't answer my question. I'll phrase things slightly differently. Given that pressure is given by -dE/dV, how do you calculate the pressure of the neutrinos in the vacuum?

If your claims worked, you should be able to create a vacuum that holds negative pressure. You've only shown me TWO PLATE experiments where the EM field is clearly "attracting" the two plates.

Why are you capitalizing TWO PLATE? The plates provide the boundary conditions. Do you know what that means?

Guth's mythical vacuum contains no second plates. It has NO THING (not a single thing) to work with other than positive kinetic energy that will constantly push INTO, not pull away from his mass blob thingy.

Once again I literally have no idea what you are talking about. What Guth needs for the quantum vacuum to have the property that dE/dV can be positive. This has nothing to do with kinetic energy of anything.

You'll need to add solid pistons and chambers to the outside of our universe. Are you prepared to do that?

No I don't. What on Earth gave you that idea?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Because it is physically incapable of holding a -E!

Positive dE/dV does not imply -E.

I've done that already a bunch of times. How did you intend to hold negative kinetic energy (-E) in the vacuum?

Positive dE/dV does not imply -E.

Unless Michael Mozina is willing to learn a little calculus, he'll never understand how pressure can be negative.

That, by the way, is an example of how Michael Mozina's inability/refusal to bark math makes it hard for him to evaluate or to make a scientific argument.

 

[ben m]

That, by the way, is an example of how Michael Mozina's inability/refusal to bark math makes it hard for him to evaluate or to make a scientific argument.

It's not a bug, it's a feature. Math would make his hobby horse look bad. No math is a requirement, both of Mozina's anti-physics contrarianism and of his iron-sun crackpottery.

 

[temporalillusion]

Just call it tension rather than negative pressure. Pressure pushes, tension pulls.

Dark energy is the tension that exists because whatever it is (cosmological constant or whatever) is persistent (the density doesn't change). Dark energy doesn't push or pull on anything itself but how it interacts with gravity that accelerates expansion.

Here's an analogy. Take a bottle with a cork in it, and inside is something with uniform energy density (a bottlelogical constant). If you pull the cork out a bit, you increase the volume, and since the energy density is constant, the total energy in the bottle had to have increased.

If the bottle was filled with champagne with the contents under a positive pressure, it would push the cork out and total energy of the bottle decreases.

The bottle filled with the bottlelogical constant is the opposite, so the pressure is negative (or just call it tension).

(Someone correct me if my analogy is wrong, I remember reading it from a book)

 

[Michael Mozina]

That would be shifting the goal posts on your part. You said: "Too bad you can't demonstrate that "negative pressure from a vacuum" claim in the lab."

No, you're the one shifting the goal posts. You only have ONE mass blob thingy in your theory, and a "vacuum" to work with. That's it. No second objects. No other STUFF, just a blob and a vacuum.

The experiments clearly demonstrate that the EM FIELD is the CARRIER PARTICLE of the ATTRACTION FORCE between the two plates. How do we know this? Because plastic plates don't attract! The pressure of the vacuum is unchanged in any way based upon the type of materials in the plates. The PRESSURE that YOU are talking about comes from a SECOND metal plate (second object) and the carrier particle involved in the kinetic energy exchange is identified based upon the effect of the materials upon the experiment. At no time did the actual "vacuum" itself contain "negative pressure". You're doing another bait and switch routine. "Look, here's an example of negative pressure from a vacuum, we'll add charge separation/attraction to a second external object!". Boloney. At no time did the vacuum contain "negative pressure" even if the net pressure from a SECOND OBJECT creates 'negative pressure" on the surface on the first plate.

Now of course, if you'd like to change your bang theory to include a SECOND EXTERNAL object, I'm all ears......

 

[Michael Mozina]

Michael: the force on the plates shows the presence of energy density in the empty space between the plates.

True, but irrelevant. Guth didn't have a second object to his name. What a pity.

Energy densities serve as sources in GR.

True again. Would you like to add a second (external object) to your bang theory? I'll certainly entertain the idea.

Calculate the energy density between the plates and try to put it into GR alongside the other energy sources.

I'll do that if you'd like to claim the "mass blob" was "positively charged" and attracted to an external object/field.

(Of course you won't do it, you have no idea how to do it. So stop complaining that we're doing it wrong.)

I'm just complaining about another blatant example of 'bait and switch'. I complained because no vacuum *EVER* holds a NEGATIVE PRESSURE. Your plates can "attract" (or repulse by the way), but that has nothing to do with the pressure of the vacuum itself. It's the EM field you're now talking about, and again, that too can be explained in terms of "relative pressure' (inside and outside of the plates), not just in terms of "negative pressure". Hoy. It's like talking to a brick wall around here.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I don't want to hold negative kinetic energy. I must have said this ten times by now. Nor do I need to add or subtract anything (not really anyway). What I need is for the quantum vacuum to act in such a way that dE/dV is positive.

Please do that WITHOUT stuffing A SECOND object into the vacuum.

 

[ben m]

I'm just complaining about another blatant example of 'bait and switch'. I complained because no vacuum *EVER* holds a NEGATIVE PRESSURE. Your plates can "attract" (or repulse by the way), but that has nothing to do with the pressure of the vacuum itself. It's the EM field you're now talking about, and again, that too can be explained in terms of "relative pressure' (inside and outside of the plates), not just in terms of "negative pressure". Hoy. It's like talking to a brick wall around here.

Sorry, Michael: no vacuum holds any properties that you're competent to understand. The "pressure" relevant to cosmology is a GR effect. It doesn't need any "plates" to act on (that's specific to the Casimir effect, which probes this pressure in a non-GR way). But you don't use GR, of course you don't understand it. That's fine, most people don't. But most people don't get all excited about it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Sorry, Michael: no vacuum holds any properties that you're competent to understand.

It's a pity you feel compelled to attack the individual as often as you do. That particular behavior is what makes your little religion a lot like dealing with an inbred cult.

 

[Michael Mozina]

FYI ben, I'll get excited when one you can tell me where dark energy comes from. Right now all I see are lots of sky claims, and nothing in the lab that even looks REMOTELY like it actually works as described.

 

[Tubbythin]

Please do that WITHOUT stuffing A SECOND object into the vacuum.

A vacuum with a constant energy density would do that.

 

[Tubbythin]

No, you're the one shifting the goal posts.

No I'm not. YOU made a claim that something hadn't been demonstrated. I gave an example showing you were wrong. So you started adding caveats to your claim: that is blatant shifting of the goal posts. Thankfully the full conversation is documented for anyone and everyone to see your goalpost shifting.

You only have ONE mass blob thingy in your theory, and a "vacuum" to work with. That's it. No second objects. No other STUFF, just a blob and a vacuum.

What are you talking about? What mass blob thingy are you talking about. I have literally no idea.

The experiments clearly demonstrate that the EM FIELD is the CARRIER PARTICLE of the ATTRACTION FORCE between the two plates. How do we know this? Because plastic plates don't attract! The pressure of the vacuum is unchanged in any way based upon the type of materials in the plates.

The plates provide the boundary conditions, like I said. So. Do you understand what I mean by boundary conditions? Yes or no?

The PRESSURE that YOU are talking about comes from a SECOND metal plate (second object) and the carrier particle involved in the kinetic energy exchange is identified based upon the effect of the materials upon the experiment.

Nope. This may not be the most precise explanation but... The pressure can be thought of as arising from the reduced number of normal modes possible in the gap between the plates due to the boundary conditions imposed by the plates. This means the energy density is less. Increasing the gap increases the number of normal modes increasing the energy density. Since increasing the space between the plates increases the volume of the gap we have an increase in energy with volume ie dE/dV is positive ie -dE/dV is negative ie pressure is negative.

At no time did the actual "vacuum" itself contain "negative pressure".

Yes it is. See above.

You're doing another bait and switch routine. "Look, here's an example of negative pressure from a vacuum, we'll add charge separation/attraction to a second external object!".

What are you talking about? I haven't said anything remotely like that bit in quotation marks. The plates provide the boundary conditions.

Boloney. At no time did the vacuum contain "negative pressure" even if the net pressure from a SECOND OBJECT creates 'negative pressure" on the surface on the first plate.

See above.

Now of course, if you'd like to change your bang theory to include a SECOND EXTERNAL object, I'm all ears......

Why would I possibly want to do that? If the vacuum has a constant, positive, energy density then we have all we need.

 

[ben m]

FYI ben, I'll get excited when one you can tell me where dark energy comes from. Right now all I see are lots of sky claims,

Good. Because we don't know where dark energy comes from, we just see its effects observationally. The observed effects are inconsistent with laboratory physics.

When we look into the sky and see ordinary laboratory physics ... well, it gets published as a normal discovery and we move on. Normal plasma physics---shocks, waves, the magnetorotational instability, whistler modes? We see all of that. Nuclear physics---fusion, neutron capture, spallation, neutrinos? We see all of that. Strong-field point-source gravity? Gravity waves? Weak-limit gravity? Gravitational lensing? Shapiro delays? We see all of that.

Throw in everything we've ever seen in the lab, and that doesn't explain the high-redshift cosmology data. Sorry. No matter what it is (dark energy, f(R), quintessence, variable-speed-of-light) it's definitely something we haven't seen in the lab as of 2011.

Again: either prove me wrong---I'm still waiting for your amazing alternative hypothesis---or get used to it. That's what nature handed us, we don't get a choice in the matter.

 

[Michael Mozina]

A vacuum with a constant energy density would do that.

Please demonstrate *IN THE LAB*.

 

[Tubbythin]

Please demonstrate *IN THE LAB*.

I can't. I never claimed to be able to. But it is consistent with GR and could explain the type 1a supernova observations.

 

[Michael Mozina]

No I'm not. YOU made a claim that something hadn't been demonstrated.

And it still hasn't been either.

I gave an example showing you were wrong. So you started adding caveats to your claim: that is blatant shifting of the goal posts.

No! I bitched because Guth tried to claim his vacuum contained "negative pressure". Your "bang" theory starts with *ONE* and ONLY ONE "mass thingy" and a vacuum. You're the one now adding caveats to your claim by adding a SECOND OBJECT to the vacuum. There's no "second blog" in Guth's claim! That's a blatant shift of the goalposts.

What are you talking about? What mass blob thingy are you talking about. I have literally no idea.

FYI, the whole debate about the Casmir effect began when I bitched about Guth's evocation of a magic negative pressure vacuum.

The plates provide the boundary conditions, like I said. So. Do you understand what I mean by boundary conditions? Yes or no?

Sure as long as you accept the fact that the plate has 6 sites, not just one.

Nope. This may not be the most precise explanation but... The pressure can be thought of as arising from the reduced number of normal modes possible in the gap between the plates due to the boundary conditions imposed by the plates. This means the energy density is less.

Actually, we're talking so far.... You mean the "relative pressure" between the plates is "less than" the pressure outside of the plates.

Increasing the gap increases the number of normal modes increasing the energy density. Since increasing the space between the plates increases the volume of the gap we have an increase in energy with volume ie dE/dV is positive ie -dE/dV is negative ie pressure is negative.

Relative to what? ONE SIDE OF THE PLATE?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I can't. I never claimed to be able to. But it is consistent with GR and could explain the type 1a supernova observations.

Magic expansion would explain it too. That doesn't mean that I believe in magic. In the lab your claim turns out to be indistinguishable from magic expansion.

 

[Tubbythin]

Magic expansion would explain it too. That doesn't mean that I believe in magic.

Unfortunately magic expansion isn't consistent with GR.