• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Michael Mozina said:
The whole Casimir experiment is typically performed at 1ATM, and at room temperatures.
Click to expand...

Michael Mozina said:
Specifically which experiment was done at *zero* pressure and *zero* degrees Kelvin?
Click to expand...

Nice moving of the goalposts. I never said zero pressure OR zero kelvin. But YOU said 1 atmosphere and room temperature. For most people it's not hard to understand that a pressure other than 1 atmosphere doesn't mean zero pressure, and a temperature other than room temperature doesn't mean zero kelvin. So either you're even more clueless than I thought (and even I don't think you're that clueless), or you're being dishonest, or you just didn't remember what you yourself claimed.

But to be more explicit about how you're wrong, NONE of the Casimir effect experiments are done at atmospheric pressure, as you claimed was the norm.
 
Michael Mozina said:
A vacuum can contain pressure if it contains atoms at some temperature.
Click to expand...

Or if there's a Casimir effect. Or if there's radiation pressure (which is distinct from the Casimir effect).

PV=nRT
Click to expand...

Not for radiation pressure. Nor for a non-ideal gas (and all real gasses are non-ideal). Nor even for an ideal gas if it's relativistic. You cling to the ideal gas law like a pacifier, with no clue about where it comes from or when it is and isn't a good approximation.
 
Reality Check said:
The scientific meaning of pressure is a force per unit area. The force results from "a physical process of some sort", e.g. vacuum fluctuations.


What is what? Pressure?
Click to expand...

146ffa227c9c02a846c1bd67cb6c537c.png


Every point on every part of every surface experiences "positive pressure" from the "vacuum. There is no negative pressure in the vacuum, just a "pressure difference" between the outside and inside of the plates.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Hey, we agree on at least that much.
Click to expand...
No we do not.
You have stated that the blue arrows are pressure. That is wrong. Pressure is a scalar quantity (a number). The blue arrows have direction. They are thus vector quantities and cannot be pressure.
Given that the caption of the diagram is "Casimir forces on parallel plates" and that the only unlabeled component are the blue arrows, the blue arrows must be force.
 
Michael Mozina said:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/1/4/6/146ffa227c9c02a846c1bd67cb6c537c.png

Every point on every part of every surface experiences "positive pressure" from the "vacuum. There is no negative pressure, just a "pressure difference" between the outside and inside of the plates.
Click to expand...
Still wrong.
F = normal force. A normal force can be negative or positive according to whether the force is attractive or repulsive. Thus p=F/A means that p can be positive or negative.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Yes, do you?
<random bolding of text here>
Click to expand...

Hey. I can quote papers I don't understand and add some bolding and claim it supports my assertions too.

e.g...

Quantum mechanics is wrong:
See this:

We theoretically describe the quantum properties of a large-Fresnel-number degenerate optical parametric oscillator (DOPO) with spherical mirrors that is pumped by a Gaussian beam and is tuned at the subharmonic frequency to a given transverse-mode family. We first analyze the classical problem and find that only the Laguerre-Gauss modes with lowest orbital angular momentum (OAM) are amplified above threshold. The transverse symmetry of the classically emitted signal field depends on the family index f. If f is even the lowest available OAM is zero and emission occurs in a radially symmetric mode; on the contrary, if f is odd the lowest available OAM is 1 and the emitted signal field has the shape of a hybrid Laguerre-Gauss mode (a linear combination of the two Laguerre-Gauss modes with OAM equal to ±1) that breaks the rotational invariance of the system. Next we focus on the squeezing properties of this DOPO model. As for the modes with lowest OAM we demonstrate that their quantum properties (in the linear approximation) are equal to the standard single-mode DOPO (for even f) or to the recently analyzed DOPO tuned to its first transverse-mode family [C. Navarrete-Benlloch, E. Roldán, and G. J. de Valcárcel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 203601 (2008)]. Concerning the rest of (classically empty) modes (having larger OAM) we find that combinations of Laguerre-Gauss modes with opposite OAM (hybrid Laguerre-Gauss modes) exhibit quadrature squeezing. This property is independent of the even or odd character of the family index and hence has nothing to do with the symmetry of the classically emitted signal field.Noticeably the amount of squeezing does not depend on the pump level (it is thus noncritical squeezing) and can be arbitrarily large for the lower OAM nonamplified modes.
Click to expand...

So clearly light is a wave and not a particle. (Hey, its just common sense). :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
:popcorn1

Keep at em mike, dont let their hypostatisated mathematical constructs and abstractions confuse you. Unless they can be empirically tested and proved in situ in controlled conditions, then it's just as bad as the metaphysical exploding vectors representing field lines used in "magnetic reconnection"

Negative pressure :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Zeuzzz said:
:popcorn1

Keep at em mike, dont let their hypostatisated mathematical constructs and abstractions confuse you. Unless they can be empirically tested and proved in situ in controlled conditions, then it's just as bad as the metaphysical exploding vectors representing field lines used in "magnetic reconnection"
Click to expand...

I suppose we should all go back to geocentricism then.
 
Tubbythin said:
I suppose we should all go back to geocentricism then.
Click to expand...

What the hell are you on about? Do you understand what the logical fallacy of reification (that is very prominent in some of todays scienctific models) is?

Your post is a logical fallacy in itself, look up false dichotomy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

I'm not trying to start an argument, just pointing out how silly this post is.
 
Ziggurat said:
Still hanging out in the 15th century, I see.
Click to expand...


Here we go again. Ziggy, your usually far better than this, I expect these sort of comments from Sol and DeiRenDopa, not from you. If your gonna reply, at least put something in your post I can reply to without the gratuitous comments.

A fallacy is an argument that is not logically sound. You too should look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

The informal fallacy of false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy) involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom