Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[Ziggurat]

I didn't mistake anything.

Then why'd you say "particle's derivative" when I was talking about partial derivatives? Particles don't have derivatives. Properties of particles can have derivatives, but that's not the same thing, and it sure as hell looked like you couldn't tell the difference. And given your refusal to ever demonstrate any competence in math, well, you'll just have to accept that I won't give you the benefit of the doubt about stuff like this.

Of course, you could just provide such a demonstration, since you claim you can do math.

I asked you for a *physical description* at the atomic level of what that partial derivative related to.

In the case of liquids at negative pressures, it comes from the fact that the atoms attract each other and the container walls. So in order to expand the container, you need to do work to pull the atoms farther apart from each other and the container walls, increasing the potential energy of the system. But of course, force opposes the increase of potential energy, so you get an inwards force, and hence a negative pressure. This is really basic stuff, and you seem totally unaware of it.

 

[Tubbythin]

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"?

The negative pressure is caused by the difference in the vacuum energy density between the plates and outside the plates.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

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.



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.

MM,

I'm dropping out of this thread, at least wrt what you post.

You see, earlier I said that my tentative conclusion, re why you regard contemporary LCDM cosmological models as scientific woo, was that your approach to cosmology was (in essence) incoherent, and/or your definitions (etc) inconsistent. One thing that follows from this sort of conclusion is that discussion on cosmology is pretty much a waste of time (if you are participating in it), because one of the key parties to the discussion has such a fundamentally different perspective on key concepts as to make 'talking past each other' inevitable.

What I hadn't expected was just how quickly, over a few days, the reason for the apparent incoherence and inconsistency would become clear.

You see, your posts are about as conclusive a declaration as one could imagine that the absence of common understanding (essential for any meaningful discussion) is due to your astonishing lack of understanding of physics, and (so it would seem) the relevant maths.

One thing that follows from this: unless and until you can at least use a minimum of key terms in the same way they are used in the foundations of modern physics, discussion will be difficult, if not possible. So, perhaps you could consider enrolling in an elementary physics course, perhaps at a community college?

 

[derekmcd]

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.


Particles more easily get in from the open side.



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.



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.



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?

Wow, Michael. You need to educate yourself about the Casimir effect. This description of yours is obviously just a guess, and a very, very wrong one at that. It's so wrong, it's not even wrong.

"This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." - Wolfgang Pauli

It has absolutely nothing to do with atoms transferring momentum to the plates.

Before thinking outside the box, one must understand what is going on inside.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Then why'd you say "particle's derivative" when I was talking about partial derivatives?

My bad. I went back and looked at my quote, and indeed it was my typo. I guess that's what I get for not proofreading my stuff at work.

I think I"ll take a break for awhile and come back to this when I've had something to eat. I still expect you to explain what your 'partial derivative" relates to *PHYSICALLY* in the vacuum and how you achieved "negative pressure" in our atomic vacuum.

 

[temporalillusion]

You need to put the two plates in *very* close proximity, and the it space along the sides is quite small.

LOL, do you know that one of the experiments for detecting the Casimir effect uses a plate and a SPHERE?! And yes the things are very close, but how close? Do you know? How close are they with respect to the atoms of gas in the chamber you suppose are doing the pushing? Or maybe they're closer than the size of the "subatomic particles" so the subatomic particles can't get between them. Plates 1 quark's width apart! That's impressive.

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.

But from what I understand (someone correct me if I'm wrong) if you make the plates even closer together, the effect disappears! Or if the material of the plates varies, the effect disappears! So much for the pong game of kinetic energy.

Plus the force would change with different amounts of molecules interacting, do you have evidence for this?

You have a lot of "probably" and "most likely" in your explanation, pardon me if I go with the one that makes more sense and has theory and experimental support behind it.

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

It's like looking away from a very long very drawn out train wreck though, it's hard to do. But you are probably right.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

[...]

It's like looking away from a very long very drawn out train wreck though, it's hard to do. But you are probably right.

One odd thing though ...

... the 'train' itself is not (apparently) conscious of the wreck.

 

[derekmcd]

One odd thing though ...

... the 'train' itself is not (apparently) conscious of the wreck.

The person on the train is only capable of measuring his own reference frame. Other reference frames are, entirely, disregarded.

 

[Ziggurat]

I still expect you to explain what your 'partial derivative" relates to *PHYSICALLY* in the vacuum and how you achieved "negative pressure" in our atomic vacuum.

One step at a time. First off, pressure can be calculated by the following equation:
[latex]$P= -\frac{\partial E}{\partial V}$[/latex]
where E is the energy of the system and V is the volume. This equation is quite general (it can be applied to liquids, gasses, solids, whatever), and can even be taken to define pressure. The minus sign is not arbitrary, but absolutely required. Now, do you understand this equation, and do you accept its validity? If so, we can proceed.

 

[Reality Check]

Hi MM: You still have not answered my question so I will restate it.
Experimental physicists know that there are atoms in a vacuum chamber. They know what their effects are on a pair of metallic plates (or a metallic plate and sphere) used to measure the Casimir effect.

Why do you think that they would be dumb enough to ignore this effect when measuring the Casimir effect?

In a similar vein: Do you think that all nuclear physicists who measure radiation are not smart enough to calibrate their instruments to take in account background radiation?

 

[Reality Check]

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"?

Virtual particles.

 

[Perpetual Student]

MM:

Take a look at this: link

It certainly appears to be an attempt to include a specrum of possible explanations.

"10 Conclusions
Cosmic acceleration provides an intriguing puzzle. Occam’s razor suggests that the phenomenon
may be explained simply by a cosmological constant. This may be an acceptable phenomenological
explanation, but it would be more satisfying to have a physical explanation for the observed value
of (lambda). The unexpectedly small value inferred for (lambda) leads us to suspect that instead the apparent cosmological
constant may be the false-vacuum energy associated with the displacement of some field
from its minimum and/or that there may be new gravitational physics beyond Einstein’s general
relativity. Plenty of interesting ideas for dark energy and alternative gravity have been conjectured,
but there is no clear front runner. The models are all toys, awaiting any new, corroborating or
contraindicating evidence."

Why do you suppose there are no PC/EU explanations included?

 

[Michael Mozina]

MM,

I'm dropping out of this thread, at least wrt what you post.

I won't lose any sleep over it.

You see, earlier I said that my tentative conclusion, re why you regard contemporary LCDM cosmological models as scientific woo, was that your approach to cosmology was (in essence) incoherent, and/or your definitions (etc) inconsistent.

But in reality, my definition are consistent with empirical physics, the kind of thing that shows up in real life in a real experiment. There's nothing "incoherent" about it, and the only thing "inconsistent" with with empirical physics is your theory built on "woo". Inflation isn't real. It has no effect on anything.

One thing that follows from this sort of conclusion is that discussion on cosmology is pretty much a waste of time (if you are participating in it), because one of the key parties to the discussion has such a fundamentally different perspective on key concepts as to make 'talking past each other' inevitable.

True. Whereas you personally shun actual empirical physics, like Birkeland's work, I do not. This is probably why I have no trouble explaining solar proceses whereas you still seem to be clueless.

What I hadn't expected was just how quickly, over a few days, the reason for the apparent incoherence and inconsistency would become clear.

The "reason" has nothing to do with me, and everything to do with the fact you cannot physically, empirically justify your faith. The "incoherence" comes from not being able to produce any "cause/effect" demonstrates for inflation, but turning right around and claiming it caused a whole universe to expand, and killed off all the monopoles in the process. That's what makes this conversation "incoherent."

You see, your posts are about as conclusive a declaration as one could imagine that the absence of common understanding (essential for any meaningful discussion) is due to your astonishing lack of understanding of physics,

Pffffft. You theory is utterly *devoid* of real physics. You folks don't understand the slightest thing about "physics' or real physical things. Your side literally "makes up" the physics as they go. They stick two plates in a *positively pressurized chamber* and start talking about the "negative pressure" between the plates! Your side is completely clueless when it comes to actual physics.

and (so it would seem) the relevant maths.

Yes, you have maths up the wazoo to support these idea, and not one single shred of actual physics.

One thing that follows from this: unless and until you can at least use a minimum of key terms in the same way they are used in the foundations of modern physics, discussion will be difficult, if not possible. So, perhaps you could consider enrolling in an elementary physics course, perhaps at a community college?

All the physics classes I ever took involved actual physical things that showed up in actual physical experiments. When I took chemistry classes, it was the same thing. I could ""test my math" against real empirical tests. Physics classes aren't going to help because your theories are not based on physical reality, they are based on mythical entities like dead monopoles and dead inflation, and "dark energy" and purely ad hoc made up stuff. There is no "physics" behind any of your theories. There are no consumer products that use inflation or monopoles or dark energy or SUSY particles. What "physics" is there to even discuss in your theory that we might actually put to the test in a real lab?

 

[Michael Mozina]

The negative pressure is caused by the difference in the vacuum energy density between the plates and outside the plates.

Hoy. Did you just get through telling me that these "tests" weren't even all done in a "vacuum"? How in the heck do you figure that there can be "negative pressure" inside a positive pressure experiment when the sides of the plates are *open*?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Wow, Michael. You need to educate yourself about the Casimir effect.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...simir_plates.svg/300px-Casimir_plates.svg.png

But somehow all the diagrams and explanations agree with my perspective, not yours, and many of these experiments are not even done in a vacuum chamber to begin with! Hoy.

It has absolutely nothing to do with atoms transferring momentum to the plates.

The common assumption is the carrier particles of the EM field do the primary transfer of energy. There isn't any location in the chamber that experience "negative pressure". It's all just kinetic energy carried by various "particles".

Before thinking outside the box, one must understand what is going on inside.

What's *not* going on in the box is equally important. Some if not all of these experiments were not even attempted in a vacuum chamber. They had "positive pressure" in the chamber the entire time. There is no way then for there to be "negative pressure" inside that chamber. Knowing what is in the box matters alright, including all those air particles providing pressure in the chamber. There is no part of that chamber experiencing "negative pressure", just two plates being pushed together by the carrier particles of EM fields. That's hardly surprising since we live in an electric universe, but then you guys haven't even figured that out yet either.

Honestly Derek, how can you support the idea of "negative pressure" when the whole experiment is done at atmospheric pressure?

 

[Michael Mozina]

The negative pressure is caused by the difference in the vacuum energy density between the plates and outside the plates.

That vacuum energy density is net positive and the density on the outside of the plates is simply 'greater than" the density between the plates. The arrows in the diagram show us the relative pressures outside and inside the plates due to quantum effects. It's all positive pressure. One pressure is simply "lower than" the other, not unlike a wing in flight. The pressure *difference* creates movement, but it has nothing to do with "negative pressure" anymore than a flying wing involves 'negative pressure'.

 

[Dancing David]

Hoy. Did you just get through telling me that these "tests" weren't even all done in a "vacuum"? How in the heck do you figure that there can be "negative pressure" inside a positive pressure experiment when the sides of the plates are *open*?

Even if you are just baiting people I know you are not this ignorant.

The vacum energy density exists regardless of the precense of physical atoms. Are you really this dense or just preforming?

This is one of thos ethe sun shines at night or when it rains issues, the vacum
energy density does not care about it being an evacuated atmoshere or a full atmoshere. And it is not nutrinos.

 

[Dancing David]

That vacuum energy density is net positive and the density on the outside of the plates is simply 'greater than" the density between the plates. The arrows in the diagram show us the relative pressures outside and inside the plates due to quantum effects. It's all positive pressure. One pressure is simply "lower than" the other, not unlike a wing in flight. The pressure *difference* creates movement, but it has nothing to do with "negative pressure" anymore than a flying wing involves 'negative pressure'.

All semantics, not a bit of substance.


"The pressure *difference* creates movement" and the pressure difference is not positive.


You are the one whose theory violates Coulomb's law.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Wow, Michael. You need to educate yourself about the Casimir effect.

I have intentionally resisted trying to get into QM with this crowd, but on this issue there is no other way I can hope to communicate with you on this topic, and I respect you enough to at least "try". I don't really think I can reach most of the rest of this crew, but at the level of kinetic energy, I think I can explain it to you.

There are a few major facts in all particle interactions:

1) Mass of course, and size does matter in kinetic energy transfers.
2) Charge of the particle (electron vs. proton)
3) Velocity at point of "reconnection"
4) The fundamental transfer of the carrier particles of the EM field.

There are lots of other factors mind you, but these are highly important issues that all relate to this topic.

The Casimir effect has is obviously not occurring at the level of atoms. It is due to the kinetic energy of the EM fields of the universe. They permeate all things. How do we know the charge carrier particle of the EM field is involved in this process? The type of material we use turns out to be critical, and metallic plates tend to give us the best results. We know that the EM field has unique effects on magnetic materials. This is a huge hint.

Those green lines are the carrier particles of the EM fields of the universe flowing through our box. The metallic plates block/absorb some of that energy in the carrier particles these particles begin to align the atoms in the metallic plates. The kinetic energy is coming from the moving EM carrier particles that move through all things at wavelengths we may not even fathom. What we do know is that there is no "negative pressure" between those plates. It is not even necessary to do this in a vacuum because it's an EM carrier kinetic energy transfer, not an atomic transfer of kinetic energy. There is in fact positive pressure in the best of "vacuums", and there are lots of carrier particles of the EM field flowing through the vacuums of space.

You can't say I didn't try to explain it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

All semantics, not a bit of substance.


"The pressure *difference* creates movement" and the pressure difference is not positive.


You are the one whose theory violates Coulomb's law.

Read through my explanation to Derek one time. I think you'll have a better idea what I'm trying to explain. It's all about kinetic energy and the kinetic energy of the carrier particle of the EM field. Remember that photons carry "kinetic energy", and it is better to view the whole process as a transfer of kinetic energy rather than mass.