Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[Michael Mozina]

Please quit dodging this specific question:

What would any of you add or subtract from a pure vacuum (one devoid of all moving particles) to create "negative pressure"?

 

[Ziggurat]

Gah. I have already noted that it is not necessarily the influence of neutrinos on the plates directly that "pushes" the plates together.

It's not a matter of it not necessarily being neutrinos: we know with certainty that it is not neutrinos. Which is why your mentioning them in the context of the Casimir effect was simply absurd.

There is no "negative pressure' in the vacuum because the best vacuums on Earth has some residual "positive pressure" from atoms alone!

Atoms can create negative pressure, you know.

Guth's idea *requires* the existence of something that does not exist in nature, and that physically cannot exist in nature. There is no such thing as a "negative pressure" vacuum. That is not physically possible as can be demonstrated by the fact that none of you have identified the physical item you would add or subtract from a 'pure vacuum' (with no kinetic energy flow in it) that would result in a "negative pressure". I'll bet I never get a straight answer to that question.

Oh, but you have. Sol already provided it. All you need is a Lorentz-invariant scalar field with a positive vacuum expectation value. That you do not understand that answer is your problem, not ours. But then, there's oh-so-much that you don't understand, starting with math. I haven't gotten a straight answer on that, so by your logic, that should demonstrate that you can't do math.

 

[temporalillusion]

The area between the plates experiences a lower "pressure" from atomic and subatomic particles than the outside of the plates. It's not magic, it's kinetic energy that does this. There is no "negative pressure' in the vacuum because the best vacuums on Earth has some residual "positive pressure" from atoms alone!

I've asked a bunch of times already, if the pressure is from atomic and subatomic particles hitting the plate on one side and less on the other, what causes this? Why do the particles hit the outside of the plates and not the inside of the plates? You called it a "blocking" effect. Could you please describe this blocking effect?

If it's a blocking effect, why does it only happen if the plates are perfectly parallel? Why does it only happen if the plates are made of specific materials? Why does it only happen at specific distances?

It doesn't even need a vacuum to have an impact, part of the van der Waals force is related to the Casimir effect, which affects how matter behaves in every day environments, nowhere near a vacuum (absence of matter).

 

[Michael Mozina]

Oh, but you have.

No, I got no *physics*, only mathematical baloney and a giant dodge.

Sol already provided it. All you need is a Lorentz-invariant scalar field with a positive vacuum expectation value.

Translate that into something "physical" for us that can create "negative pressure" in a "vacuum". What do I have to do to create such a thing in a lab, and what *physical thing* are you adding or subtracting from the vacuum that will provide us with "negative pressure". Sticking a -1 one in a math formula related to "nothing" won't cut it.

That you do not understand that answer is your problem, not ours.

It is your fault, not mine. I ask you what you for some PHYSICS not a mathematical - sign. I saw Guth's minus sign, I want you to translate to that actual physics related to real physical entities that exist in nature.

But then, there's oh-so-much that you don't understand, starting with math. I haven't gotten a straight answer on that, so by your logic, that should demonstrate that you can't do math.

I won't accept "math" related to "nothing". You'll need to explain what your math represents in the realm of actual physics involving physical entities.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I've asked a bunch of times already, if the pressure is from atomic and subatomic particles hitting the plate on one side and less on the other, what causes this? Why do the particles hit the outside of the plates and not the inside of the plates? You called it a "blocking" effect. Could you please describe this blocking effect?

You need to put the two plates in *very* close proximity, and the it space along the sides is quite small. As in a pong game, it's difficult to get particles to go inside the tiny little space between the plates, whereas it is quite easy to miss, and bounce around the rest of the chamber. It's a "probability" issue at some point, particularly as the distance between the plates is very small.

If it's a blocking effect, why does it only happen if the plates are perfectly parallel?

Particles more easily get in from the open side.

Why does it only happen if the plates are made of specific materials?

That is most likely due to the fact that we live in an electric universe and the carrier particle of the EM field is a photon, and because metal has special properties when it comes to magnets and EM fields in general. I guess when we figure out a real grand unified field theory it will all make perfect sense.

Why does it only happen at specific distances?

I'm going to assume that is due to the fact the sides must be difficult for the particles to enter, and there is probably some critical distance vs. surface area that set the thing in motion.

It doesn't even need a vacuum to have an impact, part of the van der Waals force is related to the Casimir effect, which affects how matter behaves in every day environments, nowhere near a vacuum (absence of matter).

In that scenario it is entirely a "probability' game this is related to primarily the kinetic energy of the bouncing atoms. As the distance between the plates gets close enough, there are more atoms hitting the outside of the plates than are able to slip between the plates. There *cannot* be a "negative pressure" however, so your whole argument about "negative pressure" sort of gets blown out of the water in such a scenario, eh?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Atoms can create negative pressure, you know.

Ok, I'll bite. How will they create negative kinetic pressure?

 

[Michael Mozina]

How stupid can you make yourself look? The state Guth is talking about has p=-\rho. There is a non-zero and positive energy in the field. There is more than an entire page of that paper devoted to just that.

This is particularly amazing statement considering you just got through telling me this was a "net zero" energy scenario. How stupidly can you explain your theory if you can't keep it consistent from one moment to the next? Where did you get a "net zero" from a "net positive" energy transition? Gah. No wonder you guys away with this stuff. You can't even keep your own stories straight, and it changes like the wind depending on your mood.

E=MC^2, and E has *always* (as in eternally) existed.

Guth's theory is no "free lunch theory".

 

[Michael Mozina]

The scalar condensate.

The "scalar condensate" of/related to "what" physical thing?

 

[sol invictus]

This is particularly amazing statement considering you just got through telling me this was a "net zero" energy scenario.

Unbelievable. Did you understand anything of that discussion? Do you even remember where the negative contribution came from? It wasn't from the scalar, was it?

How stupidly can you explain your theory if you can't keep it consistent from one moment to the next? Where did you get a "net zero" from a "net positive" energy transition?

Why are you putting quotes around "net postive", Michael? Who are you quoting? Not me, that's for sure.

Gah. No wonder you guys away with this stuff. You can't even keep your own stories straight, and it changes like the wind depending on your mood.

Your comments make you out to be an idiotic fool that is completely incapable of learning or understanding. I hope for your sake that isn't really the case.

ETA - It's getting increasingly difficult for me to stay civil in this discussion. I think everything is very clear to anyone reading this thread, so I'm putting MM on ignore for now. If anyone else has any questions or confusions, ask away.

 

[Ziggurat]

Ok, I'll bite. How will they create negative kinetic pressure?

Why on earth did you stick "kinetic" in there? I have no idea what you might mean by "kinetic pressure", but I'm just talking about ordinary pressure. As in force/area, or the negative of the partial derivative of energy with respect to volume.

And negative pressure in liquids is rather common, for example.

 

[Ziggurat]

This is particularly amazing statement considering you just got through telling me this was a "net zero" energy scenario.

Not really. The field in question is not the gravitational field. The gravitational field has negative energy. Positive energy in this other field is balanced by negative energy in this other field.

How stupidly can you explain your theory if you can't keep it consistent from one moment to the next?

There is no inconsistency, only your own confusion.

E=MC^2

As I've already pointed out to you, this equation comes from special relativity, which explicitly ignores gravity.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Why on earth did you stick "kinetic" in there?

Where do you figure the "pressure" comes from in ordinary gas?

I have no idea what you might mean by "kinetic pressure", but I'm just talking about ordinary pressure.

In atomic "pressure", it is the density and the *kinetic movement of atoms* that creates the "pressure" inside the chamber. You can theoretically get to 'no" density and "zero" atoms and thereby create "zero pressure", but there is no way to achieve "negative pressure" at an atomic level.

As in force/area, or the negative of the partial derivative of energy with respect to volume.

Let's just talk ordinary atoms for a moment. What does the "particles derivative with respect to volume" mean and how would you get to "negative pressure" in an ordinary vacuum here on Earth? Forget the subatomic aspects for the time being, just tell me what you intend to do with a "zero" pressure vacuum to achieve "negative" pressure in that chamber.

You're confusing many concepts now including molecular flow. I think we need to stick to one topic at a time and specifically the idea that you can achieve "negative" pressure in that vacuum. It's never going to happen at an atomic level.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Unbelievable. Did you understand anything of that discussion? Do you even remember where the negative contribution came from? It wasn't from the scalar, was it?

You neglected to mention what the scalar field is, or where it originates, etc.

Why are you putting quotes around "net postive", Michael? Who are you quoting? Not me, that's for sure.

Your idea of a net zero energy universe is not possible, and even Guth's theory is predicated on preexisting energy in the form of "heat" in some unspecified form, that is "supercooled" in some way. It began *with net positive energy*, just like my two bomb analogy. Whereas my preexisting energy came from the bombs, Guth's just began with "heat". There was never a "zero" state of energy.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Actually, ...

... you can!

There are certainly many ways you can, in principle - measure the distance to a bunch of galaxies out to ~80 Mpc say, wait a million years or so, then remeasure the distances to the same galaxies - but none seem practical.

I missed this earlier. Well, I'm not sure how you intend to "measure" anything over such a distance. That would require quite a long yardstick. Even then how would you know if "expansion" was caused by expansion of space or just expansion of objects in space?

You don't find it the least bit "unusual" that something could be "causing' a mostly plasma universe to "accelerate" and have no physical effect here inside of our own solar system? Considering the fact that EM fields are the one known force of nature that is in fact 39 OOMs more powerful than gravity, wouldn't that be a logical place to start looking? You don't think that might have something to do with the solar wind acceleration, or something a little less "inconvenient" when it comes to "testing' ideas related to acceleration?

It seems to me that terms like "dark energy' seem to be prohibiting this industry from seeking "simpler" and more logical explanations for expansion that have already been shown to exist in nature, and have been shown to be involved in particle acceleration from spheres in a plasma vacuum, etc. What's in a name? Maybe everything.

Well, maybe not: The time evolution of cosmological redshift as a test of dark energy:

The problem of course is that we aren't actually "testing" anything called "dark energy" this way because "dark energy' does not actually exist in nature and therefore dark energy has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual physical *cause* of these observations. The notion we can arbitrarily make up "placeholder terms for human ignorance" when it comes to forces of nature leads to all sorts of misconceptions and the "belief" the somehow we are "testing" something called "dark energy". That is not a test of dark energy. That is a "test" of invisible faeries. Unless one can demonstrate a cause/effect relationship between acceleration of a plasma universe and "dark energy" there's no way to "test" dark energy.

 

[Ziggurat]

Where do you figure the "pressure" comes from in ordinary gas?

Pressure is far more generic than just gasses, so there's simply no reason to limit ourselves to kinetic gas theory.

You can theoretically get to 'no" density and "zero" atoms and thereby create "zero pressure", but there is no way to achieve "negative pressure" at an atomic level.

Nonsense. I gave you an example where that's simply not true. Did you even look at that link on negative pressures in liquids? It even gives an explicit experimental description of how you can measure such negative pressures.

Let's just talk ordinary atoms for a moment. What does the "particles derivative with respect to volume" mean

Nothing. Which is why I never said anything about a particle's derivative, because that's a meaningless phrase. I said partial derivative. That wasn't a typo. But the fact that you mistook it for "particle's derivative" is yet another demonstration of your complete lack of math skills. It was good for a laugh, though.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Pressure is far more generic than just gasses, so there's simply no reason to limit ourselves to kinetic gas theory.

For purposes of a "negative pressure" it would be helpful to start there.

Nonsense. I gave you an example where that's simply not true. Did you even look at that link on negative pressures in liquids? It even gives an explicit experimental description of how you can measure such negative pressures.

I have not yet had time to look at your link yet, but I can tell you liquids are full of particles that flow and move and create "vacuum effects" in liquids that are sometimes called "negative pressures", just like people talk about negative air pressures when talking in relative terms.

Nothing. Which is why I never said anything about a particle's derivative, because that's a meaningless phrase. I said partial derivative. That wasn't a typo. But the fact that you mistook it for "particle's derivative" is yet another demonstration of your complete lack of math skills. It was good for a laugh, though.

This is the kind of nonsense that irks me and it's why I now have a chip on my shoulder to this nonsense. I didn't mistake anything. I asked you for a *physical description* at the atomic level of what that partial derivative related to. Instead of giving me an honest answer you used it as an excuse to attack me. How sad.

 

[Michael Mozina]

And negative pressure in liquids is rather common, for example.

How does a liquid break?
Measuring the tensile strength of a solid involves applying an increasing stress until the solid breaks. The study of cavitation in liquids follows a similar path. Suppose that some water is put into a cylinder that is sealed with a piston. If the piston is above the water and has a weight placed on top of it, the water will be under a positive pressure. The pressure will be equal to the weight divided by the cross-sectional area of the cylinder. But if the apparatus is turned upside down and a weight hung from the piston, what happens? The correct answer depends critically on some details of the situation that we have not yet specified. If there is an air bubble in the water above the piston, then when the weight pulls on the piston, the bubble will grow and the piston will fall. If there is no air bubble and the weight is small, the piston will move down a short distance but soon come to rest. In that equilibrium position, the force exerted by the weight is balanced by a force that the water exerts. The water is thus under negative pressure—that is, under positive stress.

Is this what you're trying to use to justify the idea of "negative pressure"?

This is another example of entirely relative use of the term "negative pressure". All you are doing here is *decreasing the pressure* from liquid's original equilibrium point to a region of *less pressure". When the 'pressure differential" is great enough, the air bubbles form and grow and the show is over. The use of the term "negative pressure" here is highly, in fact entirely "relative" to the liquid's original equilibrium "pressure".

 

[sol invictus]

Nothing. Which is why I never said anything about a particle's derivative, because that's a meaningless phrase. I said partial derivative. That wasn't a typo. But the fact that you mistook it for "particle's derivative" is yet another demonstration of your complete lack of math skills. It was good for a laugh, though.

Oh, dear.

 

[Ziggurat]

Is this what you're trying to use to justify the idea of "negative pressure"?

I'm not justifying negative pressures, I'm giving you an example of negative pressures. No justification is needed for what has been observed.

This is another example of entirely relative use of the term "negative pressure". All you are doing here is *decreasing the pressure* from liquid's original equilibrium point to a region of *less pressure".

Boy, is your reading comprehension bad. No, that is NOT what is happening. The negative pressures are absolute negative pressures, not simply lower relative pressures.

The use of the term "negative pressure" here is highly, in fact entirely "relative" to the liquid's original equilibrium "pressure".

No, it is not. Had you read further, you would have encountered this bit:

Marcellin Berthelot claimed in 1850 that he had reached –50 bars in a glass ampoule completely filled with pure water.1 In 1967, Edwin Roedder at the US Geological Survey reached –1000 bars with water inclusions in natural rocks.2 The world’s record now belongs to Austen Angell and his collaborators at Arizona State University, who in 1991 reported achieving –1400 bars with a similar technique but synthetic materials.3 Such very large negative pressures are comparable to theoretical predictions by Robin Speedy of the University of Wellington (in New Zealand) for the maximum negative pressure in water.4

Since atmospheric pressure is 1 bar, these are rather obviously negative absolute pressures.

 

[billw]

Oh, dear.

I think this thread has officially jumped the shark; time for the peanut gallery to move on to greener pastures...