Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: rwjefferson on 02/02/2010 21:44:52
-
It is my current understanding that Einstein spent the rest of his life trying to better understand the cosmic aether and negative infinite vacuum energy differential. Newton did not imagine that time might be fluent. What did Einstein not imagine?
Earth holds an atmosphere of fluent electromagnetic particles. Call them as atoms. Space holds an aethersphere of fluent quantum particles. Call them as gravitons.
What might happen as matter is dragged by the aether wind as gravitons flow inthrough black drainhole mass? What does relative viscosity in verse hubble by the speed of light constant mean to you?
peace
rwj
RWJ You seem to be proposing a new theory here more than asking a question. I think this topic belongs in New Theories.
Geezer (Moderator)
-
It is my current understanding that Einstein spent the rest of his life trying to better understand the cosmic aether and negative infinite vacuum energy differential. Newton did not imagine that time might be fluent. What did Einstein not imagine?
I don't know that Einstien failed to imagine anything, he did refuse to except certain things tho. He held a static view of the universe, which lead him to reject the idea of expansion and write the big crunch into his theories.
Earth holds an atmosphere of fluent electromagnetic particles. Call them as atoms. Space holds an aethersphere of fluent quantum particles. Call them as gravitons.
As far as I am aware a graviton, is nothing but theory, it's energy in terms of mass that causes gravity.
What might happen as matter is dragged by the aether wind as gravitons flow inthrough black drainhole mass?
Dont know what?
What does relative viscosity in verse hubble by the speed of light constant mean to you?
An inside out space telescope that measures the fludity of light speed as a relative constant.
-
"black drainhole mass."
Sweet, that one sounded poetic RW :)
But no, if there is something working with the Casimir effect then you either have to see it as virtual waves or a QM-'foam', very similar to the Van Der Waals force in where you have atoms and molecules instead. There it has to do with the charge of those atoms or molecules. Although neutral it is thought that those charges in the molecules can 'split' into dipoles getting a minus and plus side. The weirdest thing about that is that those molecules doesn't seem to get a set state, instead they are in a 'superposition' where they without being defined, still are able to attract other molecules. And that's how a gecko can climb, and it also has a analogy to the Casimir effect.
Because, you can also repulse using the Casimir effect. And that is a similar effect to negative refraction where the 'mirror image' is turned the wrong way, as a straw in water bent the opposite way from what you expect. But to get to this effect you have to use Left-handed, 'negatively-refracting' (meta) materials placed between the 'plates'. And there you have a similar effect as with the geckos feet, and the Van Der Wald force, where the molecules charge was both negative and positive. So it is not gravity, more like some form of EM-waves, but it's very strange. Somehow it seems to point to that 'time' is even weirder than I realized. Because if you, as I, assume that virtual waves are outside Plank times then this mean that I by using invariant mass can force 'SpaceTime' to recognize something that is outside it.
At least as I understands it :)
Consider this, assume that those 'virtual particles' are 'individual particles'. Why would that invariant matter matter then? Each 'virtual process' is its own, isn't it? If they are EM waves, and still act like this, it seems to me like they are connected in some way? And that what happens to one 'process' somehow communicates to the next. And yes, I'm discussing 'repulsion' now, not 'attraction'. Or how should I see it? It's truly a weird effect.
==
You might like this one though? Bending Spacetime in the Basement. (http://www.fourmilab.ch/gravitation/foobar/)
-
Quantum gravity is not demonstrated by the Casimir effect. However it has been suggested that the gravitiational force could in effect be produced by an effect similar to the Casimir effect. Let me explain.
The Casimir effect is a net attraction produced between conducting plates caused by the denial of the existence of certain of the virtual states in the quantum mechanical vacuum between the plates that is created by the presence of the conducting plates. The unaffected QM vacuum therefore exerts a slight "radiation pressure" on the plates
Now empty space (the quantum mechanical vacuum) is seen as having a vast potential of virtual transient states and geometries. The presence of real matter denies the existence of some of these states so empty space in effect has more energy that a space containing real matter and this creates the gravitational field.
-
Soul, why isn that not kind of a theory of quantum gravity with an observable?
Does the magnitude of the Casimir effect approximate to anything like the gravitational attraction of a mass with the same energy as the denied quantum states (which is less than the zero point energy or vacuum potential of the volume between the plates).
Maybe I misunderstand. Do we have to have a single set of field equations from which gravity like and wave-function like behaviour emerge as solutions to qualify?
-
If this hypothesis was correct the gravitational attraction of matter could in theory be calculated but the calculation involves knowing all the possible geometries that space could take in a range of dimensions and all the possible geometries that the presence of each particle in space denies. however this calculation is currently way beyond any possibility at the moment however there is considerable work going on on classifying all the possible geometries that space could have there is a brief report on some of this work which is going on inImperial College London in this month's Physics World.
-
Is it "Signatures of New Physics" on P.26?
-
No that article is in the March issue. Incidentally that is quite a good article about the LHC the front cover picture with the tiny beam tube shown in the top centre gives some idea of the scale and precision of this machine.
The one I am referring to is the April issue Vol 24 no4 on page 5 title "towards a periodic table for geometry"