Can pressure be negative?

[Ziggurat]

A vacuum *ALWAYS* has kinetic energy.

I'll ignore your misuse of the term "kinetic" and take that as a yes.

Can the energy of a vacuum increase with increasing volume?

 

[Michael Mozina]

We have demonstrated it to the satisfaction of thousands of educated physicists, astrophysicists, and mathematicians. Everyone with a physics background who has looked at the issue has decided it was OK.

Define "ok"? Religion is "ok" to lots of folks, many of whom 'okayed" your theory too evidently.

The underlying laws of physics (GR, QM) say it's possible for negative-pressure vacuum energy to exist, without violating any sort of logic or consistency check.

Your stuff never fails the math test, but it always fails the physics test. When you say it doesn't violate any sort of consistency check, you're dead wrong at the level of physics. You can't even tell me what you would add or subtract from a pure vacuum (no kinetic energy) to achieve a 'negative' pressure!

The actual telescope data say that in fact it does exist.

All the telescope data tells you, *assuming* we interpret redshift=expansion is that a plasma universe might be accelerating. It says nothing about 'negative pressure in a vacuum". A simple EM field accelerates plasma. I don't need a "negative pressure in a vacuum" to accelerate plasma. More importantly, you can't demonstrate such a thing in any experiment either.

We haven't demonstrated it to your satisfaction? Sorry, that's your fault, not ours, and certainly not Mother Nature's. Too bad.

I've had creationist make similar comments.

Likewise, the evidence that the Earth is round has not yet satisfied Time Cube Guy. Too bad.

It's really too bad your stuff always fails the physics test like all good "religions'. Unfortunately you all chose to put your faith in things that are physically impossible to demonstrate and never occur in the lab, just like any good religion. Those who dare to question your faith in the unseen (in the lab) are put to the "fire" of personal attack, so at the level of peer pressure, it works *EXACTLY* like a religion, right down to the possibility of loosing your funding and being ostracized by the rest of the community. It sure has all the "smell" of a religion since apparently all of it requires "acts of faith" in the unseen in the lab, and numerous ones too, starting with "negative pressure in a vacuum".

 

[Michael Mozina]

I'll ignore your misuse of the term "kinetic" and take that as a yes.

Can the energy of a vacuum increase with increasing volume?

Sure. Crank up the charge between two objects in a vacuum and you'll get an increase in kinetic energy between the objects in the vacuum. It's an increase of *particle kinetic energy*.

 

[R.A.F.]

I have to ask these questions, because I get a million and one different answers depending on whom I ask. It's not at all unlike a "religion' that starts "in the beginning' but has a billion and one "interpretations" and versions of the same story.

Sorry, but you are in error...scientific understanding is completely unlike religious belief. One relies on evidence, the other is based purely on faith.

 

[R.A.F.]

It's really too bad your stuff always fails the physics test like all good "religions'. Unfortunately you all chose to put your faith in things that are physically impossible to demonstrate and never occur in the lab, just like any good religion. Those who dare to question your faith in the unseen (in the lab) are put to the "fire" of personal attack, so at the level of peer pressure, it works *EXACTLY* like a religion, right down to the possibility of loosing your funding and being ostracized by the rest of the community. It sure has all the "smell" of a religion since apparently all of it requires "acts of faith" in the unseen in the lab, and numerous ones too, starting with "negative pressure in a vacuum".

Oh please...if all you have to add to this conversation is "it's religion", then you need to get to a library and learn the difference between religion and science, because right now your posts have such an ignorant "stink" to them that it's really hard to take you seriously.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Sorry, but you are in error...scientific understanding is completely unlike religious belief. One relies on evidence, the other is based purely on faith.

You don't have any empirical evidence that a vacuum can hold "negative pressure", in fact you can't even tell us what you would add or subtract from a pure vacuum (devoid of all kinetic energy) to create a 'negative pressure vacuum". Your theory fails the empirical physics test *AND* apparently it even fails the theoretical physics test.

 

[ben m]

Your stuff never fails the math test, but it always fails the physics test. When you say it doesn't violate any sort of consistency check, you're dead wrong at the level of physics. You can't even tell me what you would add or subtract from a pure vacuum (no kinetic energy) to achieve a 'negative' pressure!

Sorry, MM, the problem is you.

You are making up "consistency checks" (Mozina-piricism) and judging that we fail them. Sorry, that's your problem.

We've told you a million times what's in the vacuum---quantum field fluctuations. We've told you why this has negative pressure. It has nothing to do with your mental picture of particles pushing on things. Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean we didn't answer.

A simple EM field accelerates plasma.

Sorry, that's your mental picture---yours and yours alone. You cannot and have not come up with a physics model in which "a simple EM field" yields the data we actually see. Anyone other than you who has tried this has said it doesn't work. (Derailing into generic Mozmology thread, version 10.5; launching in 3 ... 2 ... 1 .... )

 

[Reality Check]

http://www.internationalskeptics.co...attachmentid=21698&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1302054058

That particle kinetic energy is represented by the green wavy lines and the blue arrows in the this WIKI drawing about the Casimir effect. None of the blue arrows point away from the plates. They all push into the plates, just more on one side than the other.

You are lying, Michael Mozina.
The current version of that diagram clearly labels the green wavy lines are vacuum fluctuations and the blue arros are forces.

FYI, MM. You may not know that you can add forces together to get the net force. The net force on the plates is inward, i.e. the plates are being attracted together. This means that the pressure is negative.

The idiocy of depending on diagram for your science is obvious. This diagram is illustrative and scientifically wrong. The pressure from the Casimir effect is calculated from the forces between the plates, i.e. the net force.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Oh please...if all you have to add to this conversation is "it's religion", then you need to get to a library and learn the difference between religion and science, because right now your posts have such an ignorant "stink" to them that it's really hard to take you seriously.

As a stanch lover of empirical physics it's really hard to not to see the comparison. This mythical negative pressure in a vacuum god is about as useless and as impotent in the lab as most religious deities.

Tell me which empirical experiment shows that "negative pressure in a vacuum" can accelerate a little plasma, or is that a 'leap of faith" in the unseen (in the lab) on your part?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Sorry, MM, the problem is you.

You are making up "consistency checks" (Mozina-piricism) and judging that we fail them. Sorry, that's your problem.

We've told you a million times what's in the vacuum---quantum field fluctuations. We've told you why this has negative pressure. It has nothing to do with your mental picture of particles pushing on things. Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean we didn't answer.

What answer? What one thing did you physically intend to add to a pure vacuum (containing no kinetic energy of any kind at all) to create a "negative pressure vacuum" Ben?

 

[Reality Check]

Any further response to these, MM?
Why is the the calculated pressure exerted by the Casimir effect negative?
Why is the the measured pressure exerted by the Casimir effect negative?
First asked 7th April 2011

 

[R.A.F.]

...Your theory fails...

Where did "I" propose any theory? The only reason I'm posting here is because I recognized that you are still making claims that are demonstratively untrue....your own special "brand" of ignorance.

 

[R.A.F.]

As a stanch lover of empirical physics...

That's a laugh.

 

[Reality Check]

What answer? What one thing did you physically intend to add to a pure vacuum (containing no kinetic energy of any kind at all) to create a "negative pressure vacuum" Ben?

The answer is simple MM:
We add virtual particles and a couple of parallel metallic plates ( the Casimir effect )

 

[Tubbythin]

You don't have any empirical evidence that a vacuum can hold "negative pressure", in fact you can't even tell us what you would add or subtract from a pure vacuum (devoid of all kinetic energy) to create a 'negative pressure vacuum".

I've explained this several times to which I have not had a meaningful response. Pressure is not defined by the number of entities in a system. Therefore your claim is a non-sequitur.

Your theory fails the empirical physics test

Which is why its taught in physics departments all over the world.

*AND* apparently it even fails the theoretical physics test.

What theoretical test? Your non-sequitur?

 

[Michael Mozina]

To most others, pressure - in physics - is a concept which has a clear, unambiguous definition. Being part of physics, that definition is - at its heart - mathematical (since at least Newton and Galileo physics has been inextricably tied to mathematics).

Ya, but it's also inseparably tied to physics. Unfortunately none of your claims can be demonstrated in a lab. It's therefore a complete act of faith on the part of the 'believer' and anyone that questions your faith in the unseen (in the lab) is attacked as an individual. Since you can't run around calling folks "evil" or a "spawn of satan" in your quaint little religion, they are called a "crank' or a "crackpot", or you degrade their math skills, virtually execute them, virtually silence them, or all the above in your case.

 

[R.A.F.]

ATell me which empirical experiment shows that "negative pressure in a vacuum" can accelerate a little plasma, or is that a 'leap of faith" in the unseen (in the lab) on your part?

Why must others prove you wrong?...Why are you so incapable of proving yourself right.

 

[R.A.F.]

Mozina...enough of the religious garbage...that "argument" makes you look like a fool.

 

[GeeMack]

It's really too bad your stuff always fails the physics test like all good "religions'. Unfortunately you all chose to put your faith in things that are physically impossible to demonstrate and never occur in the lab, just like any good religion.

The Casimir effect hasn't failed the physics test. It doesn't require faith because it can be demonstrated quantitatively and objectively (one of the essential separators between science and religion). It's not physically impossible. And it does indeed occur in the lab. Any argument that it doesn't occur, after having been repeatedly pointed to references showing that it does, would appear to be a demonstration of dishonesty or willful ignorance.

 

[Tubbythin]

As a stanch lover of empirical physics it's really hard to not to see the comparison.

You dont even know what empirical means! You claim to be a lover of empirical evidence and then reject any empirical evidence that doesn't agree with your preconceived ideas.

This mythical negative pressure in a vacuum god is about as useless and as [/b]impotent[/b] in the lab as most religious deities.

I have emboldened every unecessary , childish, pathetic insult you have included in the above sentence. So that's four. And not a shred of quantitative evidence.
Current score:
Mozina the scientist 0-4 Mozina the pathetic

Tell me which empirical experiment shows that "negative pressure in a vacuum" can accelerate a little plasma, or is that a 'leap of faith" in the unseen (in the lab) on your part?

What are you talking about?