Re: Lecture: Dark Mater
- From: "Desertphile" <desertphile@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 13 May 2006 18:23:33 -0700
Jim Spaza wrote:
Desertphile wrote:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-942708180683792815&q=astronomy
This is dang interesting. (Ignore the way the speaker looks and you'll
enjoy the lecture more.)
Greetings Jim. I am utterly speechless over your amazing refutation of
most of quantum mechanics and theoretical physics.
When may I expect to see you win the Nobel Prize in physics?
It is interesting.
A few notes:
Weird idea about outward pressure exerting an extra inward
gravitational pull. So, the universe is expanding and dark matter,
with its negative pressure effect, might be the cause.
That is not what he said. Contemporary particle-antipartical
annihilation appears, by observation, to break symmetry (and note that
this also must have happened at the Big Bang, even though the speaker
did not mention it: very nearly 100% of the matter created at the Big
Bang self-annihilated). The tiny remaining fraction of particles,
occuring everywhere in space-time, is what causes the pressure within
the universe and therefore the expansion.
He then said that the energy that is being spontaniously created
throughout the universe is acted upon by gravity: that energy, as with
all matter, universally attracts. The outward pressure and the inward
pull of gravity exactly ballance each other.
However, he also noted the third effect which is causing the universe
to not only expand but to also accelerate. That effect is due to
varying infinities within the vaccum (the Zero Point Field, which he
mentioned but did not call it the ZPF). That effect has been observed
and measured: it is Omeda Lambda (Ol) 0.73 and the ratio of Ol to the
matter in the universe, Omega Matter (Om), is negative and therefore
acellerating..
Here's the first problematic assertion in the lecture: Since we cannot
know the energy of a specific point in space, due to the Heisenberg
Uncertainty Principle, then nature itself cannot know (in a sense).
Thus, the energy of this point in space must be constantly changing.
True enough.
How does he go from point A to point B here? How can anyone link a
human inability to know something with a corresponding universal
natural process?
Because it is not a "human inability," obviously. Humans are not in the
mathematics. The Heisenbery Uncertainly Principle has nothing at all to
do with human beings or any other living entity: it is a function of
passive particle "observation." (By "observation" that does not mean
being looked at: it means a virtual telegraphing virtual information
between another particle).
Here's the second: To constantly change the energy of any point in
space, the universe produces small packets of energy out of nothing for
short periods of time.
That is observed to be correct. Note that the time frame is
astonishingly brief. Note also that it occurs throughout space-time in
what could be called a volume of space defined as a cone with the open
end 13,700,000,000 light-years in diameter. The cummulative effect is
one hell of a massive amount of energy being spontaniously created in
the universe out of nothing.
The speaker relieves us of any discomfort in classical physics by
letting us know that there is no violation of the classical laws of
conservation of energy since...we're dealing with quantum particles.
How convenient. Pick and choose which laws are in effect to get to
one's desired outcome.
I see you are even more ignorant on the subject than I am, and I am
shamefully ignorant on the subject.
Classical laws and quantum effects are totally different: the latter
may, and does, "violate" the former---- it it did not, you and I and
the rest of the universe would not exist because there would be no
space-time for us to exist in.
Not only does Quantum Electro-Dynamics theory predict the apparent
violation of classical physics, it has also been OBSERVED to do so,
with the observations matching theory to unity.
Your objection is therefore utterly absurd.
Third assertion: These quantum particles exist "only because of the
uncertaintly principle".
Once again you got it backwards. The Uncertainly Principle exists
because space-time has topology. A particle-antiparticle must meet
before they will self-annihilate, and in ~99.9999% cases they do meet
and they do self-annihilate. However, the vacuum topology some times,
extremely rarely, causes one particle in the pair to become in effect
"lost" and therefor will not meet its twin and the two will not
annihilate. (Note this also applies to "black holes" on the event
horrizon, for the same reasons.)
More likely, at least for now, these particles exist only because
physicists have painted themselves into a corner and need some easy way
out...lest they have to acknowledge that the universe couldn't have
happened on its own.
Oh good grief. Please explain to the rest of the planet why everyone
should abandon 90 years of scientific discovery and exploration and
embrace your hypothesis instead.
Fourth assertion: for every positive electron/positron pair that comes
into existence (see above), there must be a negative pair created in
order to keep balance at the quantum level.
He said so such thing. The virtual particles are spontaniously create
as positive-negative: they therefore self-annihilate almost instantly.
There is no second pair required. (Good bloody grief: didn't you listen
to the lecture?") An electron is negatively charged; a proton is
positively charged; the same is true of every paire of particles
spontaniously created. (Perhaps with the exception of a few such as,
for example, one of the three neutrons known to exist, N0).
In your example, the electron and the positron only exist as long as
they do not interract; that life span, in "time," is so close to zero
(because the particle pairs are almost, but not quite, created at the
same point in space due to the Uncertainly Principle) that they
"immediately" self-annihilate.
No other pair applies.
Now just wait a minute! I thought that we could dispense with the
conservation of energy law since we're dealing with things on a quantum
level. See? Pick and choose the laws like it's a salad bar or buffet
line.
I am embarassed for your sake. I am a cowboy and a shepherd who never
went to school (for which I am deeply, red-faced ashamed).... and yet I
can easily, and have easily, refuted your claims with the facts:
shouldn't that more than a little shame you?
Of course, the speaker is merely stating a more tradional view of the
universe. His main point comes next.
"Traditional" as in the cutting edge of physics for the past 15 years.
Fifth: Let's theorize that the cancellation of this new positive pair
with a corresponding negative pair did not work perfectly. Now, we
would now have the new dark energy needed for an expansion of space.
As we have seen (above), the pairs are not positive; the pairs are not
negative. The pairs are positive and negative.
This is actually interesting. I can see how one could come to this
possible conclusion in order to explain the origin of the force which
is expanding the universe.
Have you a better explanation? If so, step forward and win the Nobel
Prize in physics.
Sixth: The Casimir Effect states that a force (not gravity) can attract
plates (but only at a certain distance) in a vacuum.
Actually, no. Any two such plates anywhere in the universe no matter
how many lightyears between them will attract--- it depends on the
whole-number wavelengths of particles between the plates being a lesser
infinity than the much larger infinity "outside" (surrounding) the two
plates.
This force is caused by quantum particles.
Quantum waves, actually.
There are theoretically more particles
outside the plates than between...thus there are not really attracted
together but rather pushed together.
That is essentially correct. More correctly, there is an infinite
pressure between the plates but the pressure "outside" the plates is a
greater infinity.
The speaker uses the human inability to mathematically consolidate and
track a set of infinite numbers as evidence that the infinite number of
quantum particles outside the plates is "greater" than the infinite
number of particles between the plates...thus the pressure.
Humans and human knowledge have nothing to do with it.
You have got to be kidding me!
No: you have merely failed to understand what even a shepherder has
easily grasped. This is why I feel embarassment for your sake.
Because mathematicians can always come up with a
set of infinite numbers which contain, at any one time, more identified
numbers than another infinite set can in NO way be evidence that one
infinite set of quantum particles is larger than another infinite set.
Yeah, but it is; it does; it's an observed fact. Sorry.
Seventh: The quantum particles associated with the Casimir Effect must
be bounded physically by the plates for them to have any pressure
effect on those plates.
Er, yes and no. The topology of the Zero Point Field dictates which
particle waves are "between" the plates and which particle waves are
"outside" the plates. That dictation is exact up to the Uncertainty
Principle, which is an effect of the topology itself.
Really? So, when theoretical physicists need quantum particles to pass
through a lead box to maybe cause radioactive decay or pass through the
earth to support some other theory...then they can pass uninhibited.
Huh? That made zero sense. Many particles, without any need for QED,
pass through lead. Neutron may pass through a chunk of lead three or
four light years across without hitting any particle in the lead. (This
is why a Sol, even though it is spewing out a massive number of
neutrons, appears not to be: a large body of water, and a large
detection system, is required to observe the extremely timy few
neurtons that hit the water.)
Radioactive decay is totally different, also.
But, when physicists need these same super particles to suddenly be
restricted from moving by plates in a vacuum, in order to support their
Casimir Effect theory,
The theory correctly and exactingly describes and defines observed
reality.
then suddenly these particles are bound by space and matter. Wow!
These particles *ARE* space and matter! (Sheeeish.) Space-time is a
physical thing, made up of "stuff:" vacuum it is not empty.
Finally, the linking of theoretical math and physical reality seems to
have always been a problem for physicists.
Er, no. As noted above and in the lecture, theoretical physics not only
explains reality, but in many cases predicts later observations
exactly.
Use of the square root of a negative number is one example.
Anyone and everyone with a pocket calculator can do that.
The math involved in these theories seems to be another.
Well, as we have seen (above), you are ignorant regarding the subject
so that pretty much dismisses your opinion as worthless.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Lecture: Dark Mater
- From: Mark Isaak
- Re: Lecture: Dark Mater
- From: Jeffrey Turner
- Re: Lecture: Dark Mater
- From: miedvied
- Re: Lecture: Dark Mater
- References:
- Lecture: Dark Mater
- From: Desertphile
- Re: Lecture: Dark Mater
- From: Jim Spaza
- Lecture: Dark Mater
- Prev by Date: Re: Pseudo-science
- Next by Date: Re: Lecture: Dark Mater
- Previous by thread: Re: Lecture: Dark Mater
- Next by thread: Re: Lecture: Dark Mater
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
