Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[Michael Mozina]

Hmm. I think pretty much everybody would disagree with you there. I think pretty much everybody would agree the problem is mostly that you don't seem to understand virtually anything about physics at all.

I clearly understand the difference between 'pressure' and force, which is obviously something you do not understand. The "pressure" in the Casimir experiment is always positive, and the "force" that makes the plates come together is not the same, nor is it related to the "pressure" in the chamber. When you finally acknowledge this distinction, *then* I won't spit coffee out of my nose in pure disbelief when you try to lecture me about physics.

 

[edd]

Even if we assume that something is driving an acceleration process, why would you believe that automatically has something to do with "gravity"?

Because it operates on cosmological scales. No other forces do that (despite what you'll inevitably claim about electromagnetism).

If you want to postulate another force to do it go ahead, but it'd better result in a theory more strongly predictive than one based solely on GR.

 

[Michael Mozina]

He's got difficulty believing that even in the case of liquids at negative pressure, where the experiments are easy to perform and the data trivial to interpret. In fact, I think he probably has some rather confused notion about what pressure means, and what it means for it to be negative at all.

The atomic bonds of your liquid are simply being "stressed" by the "force" of the piston. It is also an entirely inapplicable analogy since a vacuum is not a liquid and there are no "bonds" to "stress". You are simply mixing and matching analogies that are not even similar ideas.

 

[Ziggurat]

The fluid in a chamber scenario was an interesting analogy, but in that case there was no "negative pressure", just "external force" being applied to the bonds of the liquid until they break.

No. This is not an analogy for negative pressure, it is negative pressure. Once again: what exactly do you think pressure is? I keep asking you this, and you keep ignoring it. I have to conclude that you don't really know.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Because it operates on cosmological scales. No other forces do that (despite what you'll inevitably claim about electromagnetism).

What makes you believe that gravity operates on scales larger than the EM field when the EM field is something like 39 OOM's more powerful than gravity?

If you want to postulate another force to do it go ahead, but it'd better result in a theory more strongly predictive than one based solely on GR.

That is why I am attracted to Birkeland's work and EU theory in general. It has "predictive value" beyond GR because it assumes that more than just GR is at work in our solar system and in our universe. I see evidence that many of Birkeland's real "predictions" proved themselves to be useful and applicable in space. I'm simply adding MHD theory to GR Einstein's variation of GR theory (the one with the constant set to zero).

What does that do for me in real terms? Well, I'm not "mystified" by the fact that solar wind is whipping by at a million miles per hour. I'm not "surprised" by a multimillion degree coronal loop. I understand "jets" that stream off the sun. These were all real "predictions" that came from adding EM fields to GR as demonstrated in Birkeland's experiments.

 

[Michael Mozina]

No. This is not an analogy for negative pressure, it is negative pressure. Once again: what exactly do you think pressure is? I keep asking you this, and you keep ignoring it. I have to conclude that you don't really know.

I have concluded exactly the same thing about you based on the whole Casimir argument. None of you can appreciate the difference between "pressure" (caused by the atoms in the chamber) and the "force" that pushes the plates together that comes from the energy observed at the level of QM. Even that energy is 'positive pressure' there is just more of it outside the plates than inside the plates so the plates get pushed together.

Your liquid analogy is completely off topic, but even that is simply a "force" putting "stress" on the bonds in the liquid. It is not "negative pressure" in the way you think it is.

 

[temporalillusion]

I have concluded exactly the same thing about you based on the whole Casimir argument. None of you can appreciate the difference between "pressure" (caused by the atoms in the chamber) and the "force" that pushes the plates together that comes from the energy observed at the level of QM. Even that energy is 'positive pressure' there is just more of it outside the plates than inside the plates so the plates get pushed together.

If what you say is valid, then you should be able to explain why there's more pressure on the outside than on the inside. You seem to have abandoned the idea of atoms since you couldn't defend it, and now it's QM level "energy". So I take it the "blocking" effect doesn't apply anymore too?

So this QM positive pressure that's everywhere, has it been measured? Can you see its effects in other ways? How would you determine where to set the "zero" point with respect to this QM positive pressure you say is there?

 

[Ziggurat]

I have concluded exactly the same thing about you based on the whole Casimir argument.

Whether or not you think I'm right about what pressure means, the fact remains that I've told you my definition. You have not said whether or not you agree with my definition, nor have you argued that I made any mistakes in how I have applied my definition. In contrast, you have yet to provide your definition of pressure. Do you honestly not understand the difference between us in this regard?

Your liquid analogy is completely off topic, but even that is simply a "force" putting "stress" on the bonds in the liquid. It is not "negative pressure" in the way you think it is.

Once again: what do you think pressure is? This is a very simple question, and the answer should be fairly simple as well. You have repeatedly failed to answer it. We cannot make progress if we cannot agree on what words mean, and right now it doesn't look like we agree about what the word "pressure" means.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Whether or not you think I'm right about what pressure means, the fact remains that I've told you my definition. You have not said whether or not you agree with my definition, nor have you argued that I made any mistakes in how I have applied my definition. In contrast, you have yet to provide your definition of pressure.

This is an absolutely false statement. I provided you with a definition which you simply didn't like because it busted your show.

In the Casimir scenario, the "pressure" of the chamber can be a "range" of various pressures, with an asymptote at zero because we can't remove all the atoms from the chamber. The "pressure" is not zero. It's certainly not "negative". The "force" comes from the level of QM, it evidently involves the EM carrier particle as evidenced by the importance of the type of material, but it too is "kinetic" in nature. There is simply more kinetic energy pushing the plates together than there is kinetic energy pushing them apart.

 

[Michael Mozina]

If what you say is valid, then you should be able to explain why there's more pressure on the outside than on the inside. You seem to have abandoned the idea of atoms since you couldn't defend it, and now it's QM level "energy".

As I stated from the outset, the WIKI "explanation" of this phenomenon is quite accurate. I was simply trying to provide a macroscopic example of the process in action as an *analogy*, but evidently some took that literally. My bad.

So I take it the "blocking" effect doesn't apply anymore too?

The material seems to have a distinct effect on the outcome of this process. Why do you suppose that might be?

So this QM positive pressure that's everywhere, has it been measured?

It has a positive energy influence on everything that has been observed in every experiment trying to reach zero degrees Kelvin.

Can you see its effects in other ways?

Sure. QM interactions are directly related to these effects.

How would you determine where to set the "zero" point with respect to this QM positive pressure you say is there?

You don't. You simply accept that we live in a positive energy state and that this positive energy state has always existed because energy cannot be created or destroyed.

 

[Ziggurat]

This is an absolutely false statement. I provided you with a definition which you simply didn't like because it busted your show.

Uh, no. What you provided me with was simply a version of my own definition, with a substitution that made calculations more cumbersome unless you undid that substitution. Since it was, in fact, the same thing, how on earth can you conclude that it "busted my show"?

And that is not the definition you are using, anyways. Are you honestly pretending that you calculate relativistic mass whenever you want to calculate a pressure? No, I don't think so. So once again: how do you define pressure?

 

[Ziggurat]

You don't. You simply accept

How... scientific.

 

[Dancing David]

It is indeed a temperature changes from one *greater than zero (Kelvin)* temperature to a lower temperature that is also greater than zero.

And what is it doing when it goes from 200 degrees K to 100 degrees K, due to a huge pressure drop? It a negative change in presuure anfd a negative change in temperature.

You don't like that. Okay.

There seems to be two fallacies in play here. First pressure and force are not the same idea, and secondly, a fall in something (temp, pressure, etc.) does not necessarily equate to a "negative" state, just a "less positive" one.

Semantics, the negative refers to the scalar chance in a state. Less positive means negative.

4 is less positive that five, but it is also 5-1=4 which is a negative change in the number line.

The picking of an arbitrary zero point seems to be related to the second fallacy in play, but the big mistake Guth made and your side is still making is equating pressure and force as one and the same idea. They are not. There is "force" in the Casimir effect that pushes the plates together, but there is no "negative pressure" in a positive pressure chamber.

The point is that gravity is attractive in nature there it is refered to as 'negative', I am not exactly sure what is the deal with the integral that you refuse to do for Ziggy, I can do integrals, although I might have to refresh my memory when I do trig related one. So if you do the integral that Ziggy suggested , what will the sign be ? Maybe he wanted you to find the differential, I can't recall.

It is not magic math, differentials have real world meaning as do integrals.

The vacum energy is what it , if you want to say that gravity is positive that is fine, if you make all attractive forces positive then you are making the repulive ones negative.

You have an object ion a g gravitational field at a heigth of ten meters and you then move it to 5 meters, it will be at a lower potential energy.

So the scale is negative in terms of potential energy for that object.

 

[temporalillusion]

As I stated from the outset, the WIKI "explanation" of this phenomenon is quite accurate.

That's great! The wiki clearly shows the pressure is negative, and you agree with the wiki explanation, so that resolves that sticky item.

Your explanations didn't remotely resemble the wiki explanation, even analogously though.

I was simply trying to provide a macroscopic example of the process in action as an *analogy*, but evidently some took that literally. My bad.

You started out saying that it was kinetic energy that pushed the plates together, and then talked about the billions of neutrinos everywhere. And then you talked about it being difficult to get particles to go between the plates because of some blocking effect. At no point did you indicate that you were making an analogy. You are just backpedaling.

The material seems to have a distinct effect on the outcome of this process. Why do you suppose that might be?

Because this is all about electromagnetic fields and standing waves and such, so you will get different results if the materials are conductors or dielectrics or insulators. As Tubbythin pointed out, the Casimir effect an effect of second quantization. From the wiki you accept:

Casimir's observation was that the second-quantized quantum electromagnetic field, in the presence of bulk bodies such as metals or dielectrics, must obey the same boundary conditions that the classical electromagnetic field must obey. In particular, this affects the calculation of the vacuum energy in the presence of a conductor or dielectric.

 

[Reality Check]

...snip...
This is again a "false" statement. They measure "force" due to the casimir effect in a *positive pressure* environment. Again, it is *extremely* clear to me now that you folks are confusing *pressure* and *force*. The Casmir effect is a great example of this. The whole environment is *positively pressurized*, so there is no physical way that any location in the chamber experiences "negative pressure", just force.

The same would be true if we put two magnets together in a positive pressure environment. Yes the north and south ends of two magnets will experience *attraction*, but the space in between the two magnets never experiences "negative pressure".

FYI, it's going to be a busy day at work for me today.

That is correct: "The whole environment is *positively pressurized*" and the experimental physicists know this!
That is why they calibrate their apparatus to remove the effect of the "positively pressurized environment" and just measure the Casimir effect.

This sounds like we are back to you assuming that the scientists are so dumb that they do not know that their vacuum chamber is not a perfect vacuum.

Perhaps you should read your previous posts.

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?

No, and I do not believe it is the atoms that create this effect either. I was trying to use a macro example of the idea, but in retrospect it was probably a dumb idea. The whole point is that there is no *negative pressure* involved in this process. It is a kinetic energy process taking place at the quantum level between the plates and the carrier particles of the EM field. The WIKI explanation is actually incredibly accurate IMO right down to the direction of the BLUE arrows in the image. It's a quantum process and we know the carrier particles involved because of the fact the the material makes a significant difference in these experiments.

Just what magic process enables you to know what the unlabeled BLUE lines in the diagram actually are?

My guess (and only a guess) is that they are forces due to this in the article's first paragraph:

In a classical description, the lack of an external field also means that there is no field between the plates, and no force would be measured between them. When this field is instead studied using quantum electrodynamics, it is seen that the plates do affect the virtual photons which constitute the field, and generate a net force — either an attraction or a repulsion depending on the specific arrangement of the two plates. ^WP

So is this what you are saying:

• If the plates are such that the net force is replusive then the net pressure (force divided by area) is positive.
• If the plates are such that the net force is attractive then the net pressure is still positive despite the fact that the net force has changed sign.

If so your conclusion must be that the area of the plates must have also changed sign to keep the pressure positive. Can you tell us how to measure a negative area? Do we construct square plates with imaginary sides and square their imaginary lengths?


P.S. The Wiki article is quite clear that it is a second quantization effect of vacuum fluctuations and nothing to do with the kinetic energy of the carrier particles of the EM field (of which there is none between the plates).

 

[Reality Check]

Hi MM:
i would also be interested in your defintiion of pressure since it seems to be different from that actually used in science.

With that we may be able to see whether there is any answers to the following questions:
Does it have something to do with force and area?
If a force changes from being attractive to being replusive then what happens to the sign of the pressure?
If an apparatus has a constant area during experiments then is there some way to relate pressure to force?
Does pressure always push things together?

 

[edd]

What makes you believe that gravity operates on scales larger than the EM field when the EM field is something like 39 OOM's more powerful than gravity?

The arguments are standard. I see no value in repeating them. (I will not comment further on this line of discussion)

 

[GeeMack]

It is not magic math, differentials have real world meaning as do integrals.

All math is magic to Michael, since he doesn't have the slightest idea how to do math or how to apply it to his distorted ideas about physics. If he keeps math in the realms of magic, he can handwave away any reality based notions while claiming to have a superior position without ever having to actually demonstrate it to be plausible.

 

[Tubbythin]

As I stated from the outset, the WIKI "explanation" of this phenomenon is quite accurate.

Well that's great. Especially since the wiki article links to an article on Cassimir pressure. Said article contains:

Casimir pressure can be found. Because Casimir force between conductors is attractive then the Casimir pressure in space between the conductors is negative.

I also suggest you take a look, from the first wiki article, at the equation at the bottom of the section entitled "Casimir's Calculation".

 

[Tubbythin]

I clearly understand the difference between 'pressure' and force, which is obviously something you do not understand. The "pressure" in the Casimir experiment is always positive, and the "force" that makes the plates come together is not the same, nor is it related to the "pressure" in the chamber. When you finally acknowledge this distinction, *then* I won't spit coffee out of my nose in pure disbelief when you try to lecture me about physics.

Why don't you look at the equation at the end of the section entitled "Casimir's Calculation"?