Norman Albers

The Polarizable-Vacuum Theory uses the GR metric coupled with a 'scalar field'. I am trying to show the GR metric as a result of vacuum mechanics of 'massive' entities (or of radiation densities). It just depends on what you theoretically start with. People like Robert Dicke and Hal Puthoff accept the GR metric, either Schwarzschild, or the isotropic 'dark gray holes' discussed by the latter, and then 'put in' a scalar field. I hope to show the same essences as coming from an understanding of the fundamental fields of photons and of matter (and of whatever further fields) producing such metric behavior in the small. It seems that quantum field theory precludes any such 'constructionist' approach. I think this is an unnecessary part of our confusion, and that further development will include this as well as a new four-dimensional acknowledgement of the quantum field in the large.

CAPTAIN, Good evenin'. I am confused about the construction of the Robertson-Walker metric. It is the assumption of locally isotropic metric development changing over time, and also the entire space in the large sharing the same parametric development. The isotropy mirrors the observed evenness of the distribution of 'stuff'. I guess this all works out when you do it, and I am just really apprehending what we do. Is it not so that it is a very different thing to determine Hubble 'constant' locally than from looking further back? It seems weird that we feel the summation of all these different contributions, and they work out to an even sort of field at any time, the solution we derived. It's like a very large SPACELIKE STATEMENT, no? N'WA

Thank you for excellent discussion.

Maybe I am provincial, but time-scales matter !

If there is a response from the polarizable vacuum such as I analyze, the wave packet has a scalar-longitudinal mode as well as the transverse modes. SECONDLY; Maybe ten years ago I read a brilliant article in the Piano Technician's Journal (USA) written by a Russian, describing longitudinal modes in piano strings, and identifying these as the "wolves" heard in octave two of some grand pianos. Having wrestled with these as a working tuner, I was fascinated. I think these were characterized as non-tunable, to large extent. They are just there sometimes and you may or may not find good tuning to make different notes consistent. A fine grand piano thus has unique character.

It may be so, scalbers, and the best logic I can offer at the moment is that we construct the metric with the assumption of constant H, then solve the simple exponential relation with time. Note that all derivatives of the exponential are also positive if the argument is. Then, look at the remaining equation: [math] (4\pi G / c^2)2P/c^2 = \Lambda - 3H^2 / c^2 [/math]. The other equation said the sum of energy and pressure is zero, and I used that to get the "2P". Maybe now you can see the sign of assumed late-stage pressure depends on the difference of two "small" quantities. Our job is to tie physics of the vacuum and the universe in the large to these quantities. As long as we do not contravene the assumptions, we are in the solution space. One day we'll talk about equations of state of the vacuum... not today.

Here is a link to Wolram's paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0203330 You can find my cache just below in the signature. John Hunter, I welcome discussion about your rescaling hypothesis on the first page. In what sense are things static: "For a rescaling universe which also appears static..."? The expression for H(t) is the same exponential as the DeSitter assumption, yah? By gosh, my brother comforts me by finding they have a name for my condition: the anti-DeSitter metric space case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-de_Sitter_space John Hunter, I apologize for confusion about notations, and retract a question from a short while ago. We do write [math]8\pi G/c^2[/math], with G a positive quantity. The [math] {G^a}_a [/math] diagonals are all [math] -3H^2/c^2 [/math], as you correctly wrote. I am trying to figure out how your interpretation is different from the DeSitter form usually considered? You set [math]\Lambda[/math] to zero, and I am thinking that most people assume it is "small".

It turns out my "lab equipment" was not adequate. I use a relative humidity gauge, circular needle dial bought for $30-40 and hanging on my living room wall. Also I have a digital temp-RH gauge that I use when I service people's pianos in their homes. I compared the two and the analog read six points RH higher than the digital. In the rear plate you could readjust the whole mechanism to recalibrate, and this was distressingly easy. This tells me that it had been knocked out of calibration. This is important for my conclusions about the energetics of dehumidifiers and house heating/cooling. Acoustic pianos are to be kept in a midrange, roughly 40-50% RH, for good stability and long-lasting fits of wood and metal together. I ran my dehumidifier in the soggy weather of a late spring and measured what was happening. Now I can say, having reset the mechanism of the analog gauge close to what the digital one reads, that I was running at 50% or a bit less in RH. This is to say I had gotten rid of the "excess moisture" in my interior environment. If you read the manual for a small wall-mount AC unit (also 500W) it says "gets rid of excess moisture" and this is well-stated, and important. I define this as RH over 54%, personally. My skin and my pianos are happy under this. One can see that with greater relative humidity, the cold coil on the compressor unit will condense more water, as indeed a technical consultant of the manufacturer dwelling in Houston, Texas, reassured me! I said, yep, I'm in relatively dry southern Oregon so I respect your statement. THE UPSHOT IS THAT MY HOUSE IS NICE AT AN RH IN THE HIGH 40'S, AFTER RUNNING BETWEEN $5-10 FOR THE MONTH OF HIGH AMBIENT HUMIDITY. A DEHUMIDIFIER DRIES AND ALSO WARMS. as was detailed earlier.

Read in my paper on Gravitation. Study the graph of [math] K_{trans}[/math] in particular (draw it out for yourself). If there are event horizons with a describable interior, this component of the permittivity is negative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .On a different note, here is wolram's conclusion: "However, even if convincing evidence for this should be established, we will not be able to predict the distant future of the Universe. Eventually, the quintessence energy density may perhaps become negative. This illustrates that we may never be able to predict the asymptotic behavior of the most grandiose of all dynamical systems. Other conclusions are left to the reader." YUP.

If you Google on 'cosmologic constant', the first listing is by 'Wolram' (another forum in a distant galaxy). His paper is excellent and a far-reaching coverage of the subject. I am comfortable with this author's company and conclusions. JOHN. Do you think this value is shelved here, that it stays at 0.25? I am particularly (pardon the pun) fond of 'wolrams' second sentence in the conclusion.

I have written a two-page paper on the meeting of the Friedman and DeSitter metrics, given an assumption of negative energy and positive pressure. It will soon be available to read at the cache cited below. I have no new equations to offer, I have merely learned how to solve the two metrics and distinguish between them. What I question is the relation between the three 'constants': [math] 8\pi G \epsilon = c^2 \Lambda - 3 H_0^2 [/math], where [math]\epsilon[/math] is the vacuum pressure energy.

Now that read the whole page, Icemelt, I am laughing. How wonderful to see a cherished gedanken surviving both the ravages of time and of the Evil King. ("The prizes have already been awarded...")

Ok, unlike the 60's-70's, I was there and I do remember! This does not mean it is relevant here, though I am seeing humor.

How about focussing on "stable states"?

I think you are mistaken.

I am reading Feynman lectures, I-37-5: "We make an electron gun... box with a hole in it... The trouble is that the apparatus would have to be made on an impossibly small scale to show the effect we are interested in." We know this was done some years later with magnetic 'whiskers' of iron. Just how broad is the extent of coherent photon interference?!?

We should move this part of the discussion to nstansbury's thread. I do appreciate the approach to mass and gravitation but this is a broad topic.

I am not so concerned about emission details as to the possibility of detecting even one photon from such a distance. Quantum theory seems to say there is a broader wave function than the tiny angle over which the mirror gathers energy. One possible theoretic picture I wonder about: let's say there is a certain probability distribution (are coherent and decoherent different?), whatever, that projects in the far, and we are talking really far. Could this concept be combined with stochastic vacuum energy which is part of things, to where we can visualize this larger, spacelike front, as scintillating here or there, and detection probability occuring thus?

These photons are certainly very experienced. Do you think one of them relates to one atomic emission in a galaxy?

I am intrigued by your two floating and bobbing corks. Maybe four years ago I tried this, considering mass as being a VERY high-frequency polar wave, and whether there would be such cancellation of net field energy. You think so, huh?

Nice, now I can read further and shall.

In my GR textbook I puzzled for a while before understanding the integration back in "time" as you go further, is into states of higher Hubble "constant". That's where they expand the first two orders of terms, and the second is the R" deceleration parameter.

I need to understand the meaning of your terms in the first equation. I also need to see dimensional consistency in any expressions. This is always my first-level cow pie detector as I write things.

Very cool and , yea, idiot-proof! Thanks, scalbers. I get about three times what I first said, or about half the way through evolution. "You can make a calculation for a man, or you can get him an abacus to do all his own calcs!"

I calculate about 2 billion light-years; yah, no?