Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 375
C
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
C
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 375
Johnny Boy, that's right.

The standard interpretation is that the Casimir Effect proves that the infinite vacuum energy ? h-bar omega_r, summed over all modes r is a real physical quantity. If you move the two plates closer, then the allowed modes shift a bit, causing a decrease in the vacuum energy. The value of this decrease is finite and gives rise to the attractive Casimir force.

However, the article shows that the same effect can be derived without refering to the vacuum energy at all. This means that:

Zero Point Energy interpretation ---> Casimir Effect

but also:

No Zero Point Energy interpretation ---> Casimir Effect

So, from the fact that the Casimir effect has been experimentally confirmed you cannot say that

Casimir Effect ---> Zero Point Energy Interpretation

This last statement is what you find (suggested)in many introductory Quantum Field Theory textbooks and it is simply false.

.
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 330
J
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
J
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 330
Count Iblis II

Interesting, very interesting. Thanx

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Johnny Boy wrote:
"Neither does it take away the possibility that the standard interpretation of the Casimir effect could be wrong?"

Neither does it take away the possibility that the invisible purple rhinoceros created the universe or that the color green is actually red.

Apply Occam's Razor!


DA Morgan
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 330
J
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
J
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 330
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
Johnny Boy wrote:
"Neither does it take away the possibility that the standard interpretation of the Casimir effect could be wrong?"

Neither does it take away the possibility that the invisible purple rhinoceros created the universe or that the color green is actually red.

Apply Occam's Razor!
That is exactly what I am doing; and QED and what follows it seems to me extremely complicated and therefore unlikely to be correct. If it were simple you would not need "renormalisation". A much simpler interpretation is possible than "vacuum energy". If it were the simplest one, one would not get infinities. So how about applying Occam's Razor DA?

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
When choosing the simplest explanation from two or more possible choices ... the explanations must be equally capable of explaining what has been observed.

I personally think normalization a pile of rubbish that will be discarded so I am not defending it. The the Casimir Effect is the Casimir Effect and not something else.


DA Morgan
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 175
R
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
R
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 175
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:


Neither does it take away the possibility that the invisible purple rhinoceros created the universe or that the color green is actually red.
Does the word "possibility" have relative significance depending upon who is using it, DA?

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Possible when I use it is intended to convey a lack of contact with reality or lack of supporting evidence.

My interpretation of "possible" as used by certain others is indicative of proposing something as reasonable.


DA Morgan
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 330
J
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
J
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 330
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
Possible when I use it is intended to convey a lack of contact with reality or lack of supporting evidence.

My interpretation of "possible" as used by certain others is indicative of proposing something as reasonable.
My interpretation of "possible" is not to reject an idea or reported results outright unless I can prove unequivocally (preferably by experiment) that it cannot manifest. Thus QED is possible, but I find it improbable that a theory that generates infinities which have to be removed by "fudging", can be completely correct. It might have some positive aspects, but should not be accepted as the "last word". Renormalistion is needed pecisely because it is assumed that there are "vacuum fluctuations withinthe field surrounding" a solitary electron. This points to a wrong assumption, and therefore I believe that the Casimir effect could have a simpler explanation.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Johnny Boy wrote:
"I find it improbable that a theory that generates infinities which have to be removed by "fudging", can be completely correct."

And I agree only I would phrase it:
"HIGHLY improbable it is anything other than an approximation"

So where's the beef? And what does any of this have to do with the standard interpretation of the Casimir effect?


DA Morgan
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 330
J
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
J
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 330
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
Johnny Boy wrote:
"I find it improbable that a theory that generates infinities which have to be removed by "fudging", can be completely correct."

And I agree only I would phrase it:
"HIGHLY improbable it is anything other than an approximation"

So where's the beef? And what does any of this have to do with the standard interpretation of the Casimir effect?
The standard interpretation of the Casimir effect does accept the reality a vacuum-energy, which is reponsible for the fluctuations. I am questioning the vaccum-energy because when you calculate it, it is an infinite quantity. This, also relates to my rejection of the Copenhagen interpretation and the interpretation of Heisenberg's uncertainty relationships as the uncertainties relating to a point particle. The situation becomes much simpler when particles, e.g. the electron is modeled as a localised wave (in fact a three-dimensional Gaussian, "zero-point" wave in space); so that the uncertainties in momentum and position relate to the dimensions of the wave. The energy of the wave can "flicker" owing to the Heisenberg relationship for energy and time; i.e the wave can increase or decrease its energy for limited times. This "flickering in energy" can be modelled to relate to the wave component of the electron along the fourth dimension (which in turn might explain dark energy). I propose that it is this "flickering" of the wave which is misinterpreted as vacuum fluctuations in QED. The more interesting aspect of this model, is that the spin-reaction of an electron can be derived from Schroedinger's time-independent equation. I have written a paper on this but the editors keep on refusing to even send it for reviewing because it "falls outside the accepted theories". I always thought that new insights "outside" the present paradigm should be considered, because they could lead to a paradigm shift.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Johnny Boy wrote:
"I am questioning the vaccum-energy because when you calculate it, it is an infinite quantity."

I'm not questioning the vacuum energy, well any more than I question anything else, but I seriously question the assumptions and methodologies used to determine its strength. There is a difference.

I think you can not argue with reality. You can, however, argue with the way the explanation has been formulated. The energy IS there.


DA Morgan
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 330
J
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
J
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 330
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
Johnny Boy wrote:
"I am questioning the vaccum-energy because when you calculate it, it is an infinite quantity."

I'm not questioning the vacuum energy, well any more than I question anything else, but I seriously question the assumptions and methodologies used to determine its strength. There is a difference.

I think you can not argue with reality. You can, however, argue with the way the explanation has been formulated. The energy IS there.
Energy is there but it is does not come from "vacuum fluctuations". Energy fluctuations are caused by Heisenberg's relationship for energy and time, but not in the way as modelled when using existing QED. The model is wrong because an electron is not a point-particle, but a localised wave that occupies a region in space. Once you accept this and apply it consistently, the need for concepts like wave-particle duality, probability wave functions, uncertainties in the position and momentum of a particle, vacuum energy, etc. fall away. All these aspects can then be modelled in terms of wave interactions: i.e. superposition and decomposition of waves.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
I can not think of a single serious paper that supports a single statement you made.

Has anything you've written been published in a peer reviewed format? Where?


DA Morgan
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 330
J
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
J
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 330
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
I can not think of a single serious paper that supports a single statement you made.

Has anything you've written been published in a peer reviewed format? Where?
It does not surprise me, because (according to my present insight) the "serious" papers have all started off from the wrong premise; and are based on perturbation mechanisms (Feynman diagrams) that do not model the real harmonics involved. I am not saying the latter lightly because I am a great admirer of Feynman.

I have been trying to get my ideas through to peer reviewers, but as I have already written here, the editors block it because "they cannot think of a single serious paper that supports a single statement I make". In other words, if it does not fall within the present dogma, we are not interested! Don't waste our time with new ideas! The same happenned to S Bose until he sent his paper to Einstein. I am praying to find an Einstein who would be willing to evaluate my ideas objectively. In the mean time I have published a large number of these ideas in my book; alas not a peer reviewed journal. Nonetheless, I have persuaded a few "brave" souls (physicists) to review my book. Before they started they were all of the opinion that they will be able to prove me wrong. After reading the book some of them "suddenly" came to the conclusion that their "physics might not be good enough" to find the "mistake". At least, so far, none of them could point out a mistake in the physics or the mathematics.

I have a paper which I have already sent to a journal with the expected editor's response; i.e. we will not peer review it. Now how in hell can I be proved right, or wrong, with a system like this? You tell me.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Johnny Boy wrote:
"according to my present insight) the "serious" papers have all started off from the wrong premise;"

Well that explains it alright. I read these papers and see conflicting ideas discussed and explored ... and you haven't published anything so you are in a position to criticize every publication in the field of physics.

Thanks for enlightening me.

Your "present insight" is, it appears, the physics equivalent to the invisible purple rhinoceros.


DA Morgan
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 330
J
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
J
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 330
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
Johnny Boy wrote:
"according to my present insight) the "serious" papers have all started off from the wrong premise;"

Well that explains it alright. I read these papers and see conflicting ideas discussed and explored ... and you haven't published anything so you are in a position to criticize every publication in the field of physics.

Thanks for enlightening me.

Your "present insight" is, it appears, the physics equivalent to the invisible purple rhinoceros.
It seems to me you are not capable of reading and understanding English. I am trying to publish, but get waylaid by "oracles" like you and Uncle Al, who think they know everything and are only willing to consider what has already been published in refereed journals. The problem is that you are both not Einsteins. In fact this is the problem today: we do not have scientists of that caliber anymore; he justified Bose, de Broglie and Boltzmann (all of them experienced the same problem I am now experiencing from people like you and Uncle Al). The editors of most journals are the same as you and Uncle Al. The manuscript contains ideas that have not been published in a refereed journal and therefore the editor will not even send it to be refereed.

It seems that in order to get a manuscript considered for publication it must filter up through some incestuous scientific group in control of the specific research discipline. It probably relates to funding: one cannot allow an "outsider" to publish and embarrass the cosy incestuouis group of "insiders". So a catch 22 situation is created: if you try to publish you are dammned, if you try and bring your ideas to scientists in another way you are damned again because "it has not yet been published in a refereed journal". Really D A!!! Ostwald acted the same way against Boltzman, who eventually committed suicide. All physicists know who Boltzmann was; very few know about Ostwald.

I have made some assertions about superconduction and the nature of the electron on this BB. I notice that neither you or Uncle Al are willing to even try and respond. Your reaction is to try and sow distrust and ridicule me. Let's start playing science instead of the man!

Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 191
J
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
J
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 191
Johnny Boy, maybe you need to do some in depth work in the field of already accepted theories to build up a solid reputation and then introduce your new theory.

You may end up really refining your own theory on the way so it wouldn't be a waste of your time.


~Justine~
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 330
J
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
J
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 330
Quote:
Originally posted by Justine:
Johnny Boy, maybe you need to do some in depth work in the field of already accepted theories to build up a solid reputation and then introduce your new theory.

You may end up really refining your own theory on the way so it wouldn't be a waste of your time.
Thanks for the suggestion; however, why would I want to work with Feynman diagrams when the indications are strongly that they "are not even wrong". From my work on superconduction I can, and have proved that the BCS theory and the Cooper mechanism do not explain superconduction. At least this paper has been referred to referees; so I am waiting with high anticipation. Unfortunately one might still get referees with closed minds, as I have had when I published my experimental results which indicated room temperature superconduction. Just a quick point, those papers have now been published three years ago and there has not been a single paper since that either refuted the results or the theory that has been used to explain the results.

To model superconduction there are two aspects that have to be explained:

1. How a superconductor can cancel an electric field within it while a current is flowing; i.e. it has to be a perfect dialectric WHILE THE CURRENT IS FLOWING! Although all good metals (like Cu and Au) are perfect dielectrics when an external electric field is applied, they are not so when a current is flowing.

2. How the non-scattering charge-carriers in a superconductor can increase their velocities (when the current is increased) without increasing their kinetic energies. If this is not possible, the increase in kinetic energy will lead to scattering within the contact into which the charge-carriers are flowing and this will register as resistance.

BCS cannot model these important conditions. When modelling SC correctly, one finds that the Cooper mechanism, which is based on Feynman diagrams do not manifest. This is a good indication that Feynman diagrams might also not be describing QED correctly. In fact this has led me to an alternative quantum mechanical description of the free electron; which I have trouble to get past the editors. I cannot see any contribution that I can make to existing dogma that will gradually lead me to the same model.

Page 2 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5