Dubbelosix Posted October 30, 2017 Posted October 30, 2017 In a recent discussion here at science forums, in a thread related to a similar discussion I explained how some scientists consider all observable matter as just ''longer lived'' fluctuations of the vacuum. This article seems to be related to these kinds of discussions. Scientific American is no stranger to the discussion of virtual particles. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/something-from-nothing-vacuum-can-yield-flashes-of-light/?utm_content=bufferbfd4d&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer 4
Strange Posted October 30, 2017 Posted October 30, 2017 Intersting. Presumably, the energy in the photons comes from the energy used to one the mirror / change the magnetic field.
Dubbelosix Posted October 30, 2017 Author Posted October 30, 2017 I'll need to read the experiment more carefully before I really say anything, didn't have much time yesterday.
koti Posted October 30, 2017 Posted October 30, 2017 The mentioned in the article „Casimir Effect” in combination with the photons emerging from virtual particles in a vacuum - could this be the reason behind that infamous a year ago „Nasa impossible engine” to work ?
Dubbelosix Posted October 30, 2017 Author Posted October 30, 2017 Maybe? I remember reading the explanation by its creator. at the time, I actually thought it made sense. You might find that original explanation on youtube.
DrmDoc Posted October 30, 2017 Posted October 30, 2017 I'm curious, could there be any relationship between the virtual particles in the vacuum of space and dark energy or, perhaps, dark matter?
Strange Posted October 30, 2017 Posted October 30, 2017 6 minutes ago, DrmDoc said: I'm curious, could there be any relationship between the virtual particles in the vacuum of space and dark energy or, perhaps, dark matter? That would be a nice explanation. The problem is that the zero point energy that gives rise to virtual particles is about 10150 x times too large to be dark energy. There have been attempts to explain why some of this "cancels out" but it probably needs something a theory of quantum gravity to answer it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy#Cosmological_constant
DrmDoc Posted October 30, 2017 Posted October 30, 2017 6 minutes ago, Strange said: That would be a nice explanation. The problem is that the zero point energy that gives rise to virtual particles is about 10150 x times too large to be dark energy. There have been attempts to explain why some of this "cancels out" but it probably needs something a theory of quantum gravity to answer it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy#Cosmological_constant I see...being a novice to all of this, I have another question. Would the distinction of 10150 x being too large to be dark energy depend on the quantity of virtual particles present or created in space? Or is it that dark energy presents uniformly and virtual particle energy doesn't? What I'm asking is if there is a point of equilibrium between potential zero point energy bursts, if you will, and whatever uniform measure of dark energy might be?
Strange Posted October 30, 2017 Posted October 30, 2017 I think both the vacuum energy (virtual particles) and dark energy are (or are assumed to be) uniform throughout space. I don't think therein any model that suggests you can get rid of the 10150 because we are in a local maximum or something. And I don't think it is correct to think of the virtual particles as being "bursty" - they are a constant flux because of the non-zero energy in space.
Dubbelosix Posted October 30, 2017 Author Posted October 30, 2017 2 hours ago, Strange said: That would be a nice explanation. The problem is that the zero point energy that gives rise to virtual particles is about 10150 x times too large to be dark energy. There have been attempts to explain why some of this "cancels out" but it probably needs something a theory of quantum gravity to answer it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy#Cosmological_constant This is my understanding as well, however my own investigations have ruled out the effects of virtual particles over cosmological distances. This is because the forth power over their momentum is generally considered zero. However, it has been shown by Sakharov this may not be the case when the background curvature is taken into consideration. For this reason, I find significant contribution for virtual particles for early cosmology when the universe was young and consequently, small, possessing a large curvature. That early contribution may be what we call, the observable matter and energy in the universe. (Maybe).
DrmDoc Posted October 30, 2017 Posted October 30, 2017 58 minutes ago, Strange said: I think both the vacuum energy (virtual particles) and dark energy are (or are assumed to be) uniform throughout space. I don't think therein any model that suggests you can get rid of the 10150 because we are in a local maximum or something. And I don't think it is correct to think of the virtual particles as being "bursty" - they are a constant flux because of the non-zero energy in space. 3 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said: This is my understanding as well, however my own investigations have ruled out the effects of virtual particles over cosmological distances. This is because the forth power over their momentum is generally considered zero. However, it has been shown by Sakharov this may not be the case when the background curvature is taken into consideration. For this reason, I find significant contribution for virtual particles for early cosmology when the universe was young and consequently, small, possessing a large curvature. I appreciate your insights. As I now understand, the flux of vacuum energy is an insufficient account for dark energy; however, as I'm aware, the rate of our universe's expansion is increasing beyond the pull of dark matter. To a novice, like myself, the connection between energies from dark sources in our universe seem rather obvious but, alas, it isn't. Nevertheless, it's a fascinating study.
Dubbelosix Posted October 30, 2017 Author Posted October 30, 2017 Well, there are intuitive reasons why the universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate - its because it has became too large so that gravity can not ever pull it back. Think about it in terms of Newtons laws - A system unless affected by a force, will tend to stay in motion, if it is accelerating, will tend to continue accelerating. The universe is definitely in such a situation today, the mass content is no where near the required amount for collapse. The question is, what pushed the universe out of the dense Planck phase - what led up to a universe to become as big as it is so that the expansion overwhelms its own gravitational attraction? I have suggested we need to look at new alternatives to the inflation model, since this now has reasonable scientific objections in literature. I have suggested if the early universe had a spin, then it could have pushed the universe outwards, an effect known as the centrifugal force. The spin is even allowed to decay as shown by Hoyle and Narlikar - and this is important because we would want to know why the universe shows no background axis today. There is some evidence maybe dark flow is a residual primordial spin - this leftover spin is so slow, people have even disputed its existence.
swansont Posted October 30, 2017 Posted October 30, 2017 ! Moderator Note Discussion not centered on the news article should take place in another thread.
Recommended Posts