Cavity QED question

[froarty]

That's the dark secret of physics. There's always another layer that's more confusing, where you find that what you knew was only valid under some conditions.

I may be approaching that layer and wouldn't mind some expert help. I am trying to understand the relativity regarding cavity QED when a gas atom is diffused into the cavity. DiFiore et all proposed the cavity has equivalent acceleration opposite to the local gravitational field back in 2002 but only an inconsequential 10E-14. I beleive cavity confinement however allows heat energy to be redirected onto this vector. Assuming my conjecture or other factor does allow these atoms to reach relativistic veocity, My question is regarding the manner in which these "fast" atoms would manifest from our perspective - just how do these atoms deviate? Obviously linear spatial velocity in the cavity confinement is out, Can the temporal axis present itself as a normal spatial axis allowing the atom to escape confinement and "contract" away from our perspective due to temporal displacement while remaining spatially stationary? or is this an orbital velocity kind of thing like some of Bourgoins 2006 paper suggests? Am I simply proceeding from a bad assumption?

[ajb]

I know very very little about cavity QED, other than most people use non-relativistic QED in the form of the Jaynes-Cummings model, or similar.

[froarty]

froarty, you already have a thread on this, please do not hijack other discussions

 

My apologies -I had a feeling I was building a bridge too far but I am still very interested in the force messenger subject. I have heard both sides of the story regarding Casimir theory which I beleive reflect this subject. My impression is that one camp has a problem with physical linkage via vacuum fluctuations and claims Casimir effect can be explained in terms of thermodynamics which creates an imbalance, that induces an electrostatic attraction, that "pulls plates together" . The Casimir theory camp claims the wavelength restriction only allows smaller virtual particles to remain between the plates while the normal population outside "pushes the plates" together due to the pressure imbalance . I happen to lean toward the vacuum fluctuations but still try to choose the middle ground when ever possible and do have another thread regarding a possible 3rd option. As far as the messenger goes I was also following work by Beck and Mackey regarding gravitational activity of "virtual photons" below 2 THZ but when I try to look up the definition of virtual particles on wikipedia it implies that if a "virtual" particle lasts long enough to be measured, it isn't really a "virtual" particle! I guess I am really asking the same question... do vacuum fluctuations use virtual photons as messengers?

 

mod note: post and responses moved from hijacked thread

Edited September 25, 2009 by swansont
grammar -need some periods! :_) swansont: add mod note

[Bob_for_short]

How did you manage to write such a long sentence without a stop mark or any other delimiter?

Edited September 24, 2009 by Bob_for_short

[froarty]

Sorry, I didn't preview my work, I went back and edited in some periods.

Regards

Fran

[swansont]

And it can't be that the descriptions are different ways of looking at the same thing, much like phenomena that have both a classical and quantum description?

[froarty]

And it can't be that the descriptions are different ways of looking at the same thing, much like phenomena that have both a classical and quantum description?

 

If they are the same then at least we could compare results and make better predictions based on what makes sense for both conditions. I was originally afraid the thermaldynamics was more limiting than the Casimir theory but perhaps they both can explain the same results and reinforce each other.

Best Regards

Fran

[froarty]

I posted here I have heard both sides of the story regarding Casimir theory which I beleive reflect this subject. My impression is that one camp has a problem with physical linkage via vacuum fluctuations and claims Casimir effect can be explained in terms of thermodynamics which creates an imbalance, that induces an electrostatic attraction, that "pulls plates together" . The Casimir theory camp claims the wavelength restriction only allows smaller virtual particles to remain between the plates while the normal population outside "pushes the plates" together due to the pressure imbalance . and received the response

And it can't be that the descriptions are different ways of looking at the same thing, much like phenomena that have both a classical and quantum description?

I could not fully respond in the thread quoted above without hijacking so will do so here in the appropriate thread..... Yes, if both descriptions are equivalent they make a useful tool for predictions and reinforcing each other, It suggests a thermaldynamic solution would not necessarily deplete

heat energy from the cavity (my original fear). If both the Casimir and thermal descriptions are correct then it suggests they also describe a common energy source which would be the "equivalence" boundary the italian researchers proposed. That differential acceleration becomes constant if the plates are braced apart allowing either description to apply.

This doesn't resolve my issue with how to describe the acceleration of a gas atom in the cavity but it does give me a new prediction tool.

[froarty]

the paper I cited notes an inconsequential 10E-14 N always opposite in direction to the ambient field outside the cavity This suggests a deceleration or resistance to the ambient field flowing through and around the cavity. The cavity is actually resisting permeation by the field and the calculated force represents the delta in acceleration inside vs outside. The external observer falls faster relative to atoms inside "falling" at a slightly slower rate. It leads to an intriguing concept where you might have equivalent acceleration between two spatially stationary objects where one object is located inside a cavity and the other is outside. But to stay on topic I sort of agree this force would increase temperature even though it is decelerating relative to the external field. the delta in acceleration will accumulate velocity.

Regards

Fran

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I ran across a thread " Forces Of Motion In 4d, ...are there any?" on another Forum where the author mentions videos of 2D beings called Flatlanders used to describe wormholes etc. His suggestion was to take this flatland and rotate/accelerate it our dimension on the axis that the flatlanders are missing. They could not see the axis but would feel the centripedal force as an unexplainable push or pull. He then poses his question how would we feel a 4th dimension with centripedal acceleration?

---------------------------------------------------

I have been considering a related problem and am coming to the conclusion that the relativistic acceleration to of an inertial frame actually RESHAPES the orbitals but onlyfrom a time axis perspective while from the perspective of the observers own frame C and the orbital size always seems constant. My issue was trying to fathom how gas atoms in a casimir cavity could achieve relativistic speeds while obviously confined spatially. I went full circle with fractional quantum states which can not exist but here the math betrayed me since the work by Naudts and Bourgoin was not properly interpreted and seemed to support the concept when it was actually solving for relativistic scaling.

I believe that your 4D force of motion is also a vortex like your ref to flatland perspective of 3D. I prefer Professor Mallets analogy to the vortex in a coffee cup, we are only aware of the surface vortex but the trunk extends deeper into the cup as the spinning froth on top forms smaller and faster orbits. since the volume of the "trunk" represents OUR temporal axis it scales our perception of the surface orbital such that it always appears to be Bohr length. As such I think we should consider extending the Puthoff model even though we can't see this temporal axis I believe it is stretching with centripedal acceleration.

http://www.byzipp.com/puthoff.jpg

Regarding the misinterperted math that I believe has extended the controversey of fractional state quantum numbers when it should hace ended it, below is my interpretation From the perspective of an event horizon just to be absolutely clear -I am not saying the orbital gets smaller except in a relativistic sense. My proposal is that the interpretation should follow Ronald Mallets analogy to the coffee cup above. The atom is unaware the radius reshapes in 4D because the vortex trunk also changes proportionally. This would imply our time sense is proportional to the volume of the trunk to keep us blissfully unaware of changes to time rate

Note: ignore misleading ref to hydrino the fractionals are relativistic

Edited September 25, 2009 by froarty
Consecutive posts merged.

[froarty]

The paragraph below is from an Oct 22 blog Vacuum or zero point energy and quantum fluctuations. It states there is a known time dilation associated with quantum fluctuations Did I miss the memo? I have been struggling to convince people that "up-conversion" of longer vacuum fluctuations to shorter wavelength inside a Casimir cavity could be relativistic (as proposed by Jan Naudts) instead of the simple displacement proposed by current theory.

 

As mentioned earlier, according to Einstein’s space-time concepts time is dilated or always "moves" slower in volumes that contain a different energy content than the ones from which they are observed. This means the time dilation associated with quantum fluctuations will be cumulative even though the energy associated with the particle antiparticle pairs is not. Therefore, because of the random nature of these fluctuations we should observe random time dilations in volumes were they occur relative to others throughout the universe. However, this means the velocity of light will not appear to be constant because time would not "move" at constant speed in all volumes.

 

Since the velocity of light is constant in all volumes we must conclude that either quantum fluctuations do not occur or the space-time concepts of Relativity are invalid.

[froarty]

The paragraph below is from an Oct 22 blog Vacuum or zero point energy and quantum fluctuations. It states there is a known time dilation associated with quantum fluctuations Did I miss the memo? I have been struggling to convince people that "up-conversion" of longer vacuum fluctuations to shorter wavelength inside a Casimir cavity could be relativistic (as proposed by Jan Naudts) instead of the simple displacement proposed by current theory.

 

As mentioned earlier, according to Einstein’s space-time concepts time is dilated or always "moves" slower in volumes that contain a different energy content than the ones from which they are observed. This means the time dilation associated with quantum fluctuations will be cumulative even though the energy associated with the particle antiparticle pairs is not. Therefore, because of the random nature of these fluctuations we should observe random time dilations in volumes were they occur relative to others throughout the universe. However, this means the velocity of light will not appear to be constant because time would not "move" at constant speed in all volumes.

 

Since the velocity of light is constant in all volumes we must conclude that either quantum fluctuations do not occur or the space-time concepts of Relativity are invalid.

 

This thread evolved into this blog

"Will 2010 be the year of zero point energy?"