Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: Fluid_thinker on 17/07/2008 13:44:13
-
Has anyone added up all the assumed energies of all the presumed quantum virtual particles that supposedly exist for brief instances in space.
Does it get anywhere Einstein's cosmological constant?
If not, what sort of order of magnitiude are we out is this why we are seeking dark matter/energy?
-
Has anyone added up all the assumed energies of all the presumed quantum virtual particles that supposedly exist for brief instances in space.
Most of them particle physicists do not ven know the names of all the particles that have been created... one guy made a comment that if he was supposed to remember them all he would have been a biologist..... that is if my memory serves me correct
Does it get anywhere Einstein's cosmological constant?
Based from planck's constant.....
error made: no 'environment'.......
If not, what sort of order of magnitiude are we out is this why we are seeking dark matter/energy?
Dark matt/energy was an 'idea' created because the mathematical predictions do not fit the observed data....
see the 'curve' of http://astro.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/darkmatter/rotcurve.html
what they are seeing is the effects of entangled mass.....
mass in close proximity shares associating energy and the combined has a greater potential than the 2 added separately....
see binary stars o
or even the binary asteroid recently published in which they share the 2 bodies having increased rotation by the capture of the suns energy (entangling the 2 bodies further)
what i enjoy to share is that; if the potential (gravitational force) is focal to the center of the 2 bodies (the empty space between them) , then look at how galaxies rotate and follow that same premise....
black holes are simply like the 'eye' of a storm
-
I feel obliged to point out that Bishadi's reply goes against the current thinking of 99.99% of the world's physicists. That isn't to say that it's wrong; but there appears to be very little, if any, valid research to support it.
As for no-one being able to remember the names of all the particles that have been created - I think I probably could and I'm not even a physicist!
-
I feel obliged to point out that Bishadi's reply goes against the current thinking of 99.99% of the world's physicists. That isn't to say that it's wrong; but there appears to be very little, if any, valid research to support it.
And i feel obligated to share that very few paradigms were maintained by Ptolomy, Capernicus, Gallileo, Newton, and even Darwin....
point being; energy is defined incorrectly in the current sciences.
For anyone to comprehend this, simply define a metabolic process of any living form. Find that life abuses entropy and this reality cannot be understood by the complacent to current observance of physics. It comes from walking the planck, in which planck based his work strictly to entropy.
sorry, but real science means laws will be broken, to find the truth!
As for no-one being able to remember the names of all the particles that have been created - I think I probably could and I'm not even a physicist!
nor of any scientific background since you fail to realize, integrity to the truth, as a precept of science, over rules protecting a career or following paradigm just to sound cool.
meaning; if hawking or einstein had it correct, then there would be no dark matter/energy required to fix the errors in observed data.
be honest first
if you kind sir, are unaware of something ask a good question
-
Errors in observed data? Something unknown was observed and dark matter was conjectured to account for it. Where's the error in that?
nor of any scientific background since you fail to realize, integrity to the truth, as a precept of science, over rules protecting a career or following paradigm just to sound cool.
You really don't know anything about me, do you. I'm the last person in the world who would toe the official line to protect his career or sound "cool". I poke. I prod. I question. I decided not to pursue a career in academia for those very reasons. I spoke out against official government statistics, against so-called authoritative research. Don't ever accuse me of pandering to authority.
State your case. Answer my questions. Provide evidence. Do all that & I will be only too pleased to listen to what you have to say. Fail to do so and I will pay you no heed and relegate you to the league of loonies!
-
Errors in observed data? Something unknown was observed and dark matter was conjectured to account for it. Where's the error in that?
It proved the math was incorrect.
Can you not see that?
You really don't know anything about me, do you.
we never spoke about our intents or who we are.
you just jumped on me as if i was an idiot, and i responded with both barrels
I'm the last person in the world who would toe the official line to protect his career or sound "cool". I poke. I prod. I question. I decided not to pursue a career in academia for those very reasons. I spoke out against official government statistics, against so-called authoritative research. Don't ever accuse me of pandering to authority.
not the words i used.... but you suggest being so doctorish but fail to address material scientifically.
State your case. Answer my questions. Provide evidence.
I did, i do, and again i did...
planck is wrong (energy is em (light) upon mass) >>THE CASE
planck messed up with conforming >>> an answer to the question
and in virial, the math is short of data (hence the math is wrong) >>>> and evidence
but are you looking into it? NO...... you barking at me
Do all that & I will be only too pleased to listen to what you have to say. Fail to do so and I will pay you no heed and relegate you to the league of loonies!
and continue to draw blood....
what is scientific about dealing with you
i emailed your private line; read the document, when you are finished and maybe even research the material, then you can talk
otherwise quit poking or go lay by your dish
-
planck is wrong (energy is em (light) upon mass) >>THE CASE
How does that make Planck wrong?
planck messed up with conforming >>> an answer to the question
In what way?
and in virial, the math is short of data (hence the math is wrong) >>>> and evidence
Being short of data is not proof of wrongness.
but are you looking into it? NO...... you barking at me
I'm waiting to see some hard evidence to support your statements. Why should I go off looking for that evidence? It is up to you to provide it. As for barking, I can assure my bite is much worse.
-
Give up Beaver he's just winding you up and best ignored. It's all complete rubbish and just not worth refuting. Remember the general rule of chat pages, Never feed a Troll.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
-
How does that make Planck wrong?
because to isolate the space, removes the environment.... maxwell had a good thing but then again the field is related to time and then the environment becomes entangled to the system
In what way?
retention to the 'law' of entropy.... put blinders on him.
Being short of data is not proof of wrongness.
that is the difference of you and me
i like quality control to be absolute, otherwise the tangents go too far
meaning chemistry as used in biological representations is rude and why the road blocks in research;
"they observe the stuctures without every considering the energy upon the mass"
-
Give up Beaver he's just winding you up and best ignored. It's all complete rubbish and just not worth refuting. Remember the general rule of chat pages, Never feed a Troll.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
and then the peanut gallery steps up to chime in
-
Has anyone added up all the assumed energies of all the presumed quantum virtual particles that supposedly exist for brief instances in space.
Does it get anywhere Einstein's cosmological constant?
If not, what sort of order of magnitiude are we out is this why we are seeking dark matter/energy?
nice thread TITLE CHANGE
particles do not exist.... fignewtons of the current paradigm
-
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbestsmileys.com%2Fnotlistening%2F2.gif&hash=04748b1e061e375c2c91c289a85a111c)
-
typical reaction from someone not equiped to address reality.
if you are aware of string theory, then you would also agree; no such things as point particles.....
takes branes to comprehend the dimensions of such a statement
point being is there are so many varieties of interpretations, that to really understand what is occuring, maybe first; be honest with what data is available before making any claim of comprehension....
have you ever gone over the math of an accelerator experiment (ie... cern) and how they define a particle?
at 16 years old, this model and them plates were studied and it was not but a summer to realize these fools are creating the very particles they are trying to define.....
particles less than a hydrogen atom are creations caused by energy isolating energy in a fixed point in time. Meaning it is like taking the energy of a wave and wrapping it up in a field.
Or like taking a hydrogen atom and noting the variety of 'states' based on the energy upon the atom. BEC (cold) versus gas. It is the energy upon the structure in time. Then the environment of where it came from, that can affects the orientation (angular momentum) of that structure.
this is what particles are.
to understand this will alse share the weak and strong force..... as being simply of em properties.....
-
typical reaction from someone not equiped to address reality.
Far from it. You're boring me with the rubbish you spout.
-
Bishadi
The problem with 'people like you' is that they take some isolated bit of conventional Science and try to rubbish it but don't / can't actually build a complete structure to replace it with.
If you really want to show that Planck was wrong, for instance, you have to be prepared to trace the arguments back to some point at which you are prepared to agree (going back to Newton, if necessary) and then make your own argument. That structure of that argument must be of equally high quality and equally consistent with the observed facts.
Merely ranting and supplying miscellaneous assertions doesn't have as much much substance as the original work you are trying to rubbish.
You, and your kind, are so fond of quoting random buzzwords you have heard. You very seldom actually produce seriously well thought out arguments.
Perhaps (and I have often said this) you could grace us with some Maths and Numbers to support your alternative theory; then show how they agree with some well authenticated measurements. Or else go away.
-
This "point being; energy is defined incorrectly in the current sciences" seems an interesting point; I wonder if there is the slightest justification or evidence for it?
-
I'm not sure virtual particles need to follow Planck time?
I read someone :) at Nasa explaining them as not following HUP.
(Heisenberg's uncertainty Principle)
http://science.jrank.org/pages/7195/Virtual-Particles.html
That allows them to do 'impossible things' from our perspective.
Like not caring where they are, in a Black Holes Event horizon for example.
And to try to add them up:)
If you can't even observe them?
The only way we are sure of them is their interactions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particles#Manifestations
And if this guy (Bishadi) would have known his history he would have known where the idea came from.
"Paul Dirac was the first to propose that empty space (a vacuum) can be visualized as consisting of a sea of virtual electron-positron pairs, known as the Dirac sea." ...which is seen as..." in relativistic quantum mechanics, the completely filled, negative energy electron state that comprises a vacuum. If a negative energy electron is promoted to a positive energy state, the hole is perceived as a positron.....
"The development of quantum field theory in the 1930s made it possible to reformulate the Dirac equation in a way that treats the positron (antielectron) as a "real" particle rather than the absence of a particle, and makes the vacuum the state in which no particles exist instead of an infinite sea of particles.
This picture is much more convincing, especially since it recaptures all the valid predictions of the Dirac sea, such as electron-positron annihilation. On the other hand, the field formulation does not eliminate all the difficulties raised by the Dirac sea; in particular the problem of the vacuum possessing infinite energy. "
As for Einstein's cosmological constant, it seems that if vacuum has an intrinsic energy density and an associated pressure, we can't define it anyway. As only changes in the energy density are observable.
A vacuum is something containing nothing observable, until it does, but then it's not a vacuum:)
Ahh, sort of::))
And check this out too.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=are-virtual-particles-rea