A comment to one of my article.
===========
NOTHING LIKE A VACUUM is a great introduction to what we think we know
about the vacuum, Thanks!
http://www.calphysi cs.org/haisch/ matthews. html
(more interdispersed below)
On 30 Mar 2007 14:42:54 -0700, sadovnik <israsad@yahoo. com> wrote:
> Vacuum, ideal gas, radiation, virtuality.
> ===========
>
> At first let's think about radiation.
> The radiation is closely tied with thermodynamics.
> To understand the processes of thermodynamics the
> scientists used the conception of " ideal gas".
> What does " ideal gas" mean?
> Now everybody says the " ideal gas"
> is an abstract conception.
> I don't believe in it. I don't believe that real processes
> can be explained with the help of abstract conception.
> Now they say the abstract conception nearly coincided
> with the real processes in the nature.
> What is the result of this mentality?
> As a result of this mentality the conception of
> " virtuality", "viptual particles", " virtual displacement"
> in Quantum physics were absorbed. But Feynman said that
> the conception of " virtuality" is abstract. So, we see, the
> adoption of one abstraction gives birth to another one.
> And it may go on to infinity. To stop this senseless abstraction
> we must understand what the " ideal gas" really means.
> The " ideal gas " was given temperature zero degree Kelvin.
> ============
It is true, virtual particles lack absolute identity, they expose
their potentials briefly and do not persist, they lack "being". But
all electrons and positrons share this ghostly existence yet it is
useful to discus them.
> a)
> The Classical physics says, that when we reach
> the temperature T=0K all moving of particles
> stops, and the Energy of this space is equal to zero.
> It means that the space T=0K is died one.
> Therefore it is impossible something to say about T=0K.
>

> But Quantum physics says that the Energy of this space
> is not equal to zero. Quantum physics says that in T=0K
> " virtual" particles exist. Why does nobody recognize the
> geometrical and physical parameters of " virtual" particles?
> ============ ===
We know the behavior of these in quantum configuration state space
according to matrix mechanics. Each has two potentials, one right or
left handed and the other up or down, electrons ^>, v>, and positrons
^< and v<.
Electrons of like spin (up or down) interact by cancelling of equal
and opposite potentials via a virtual positron (vacuum energy), or
cross product of the two electrons, ^> X ^> = v<, there by occupying
independent state.
> Planck studied the space of an absolute black body.
> Laue called the model of absolute black body
> " Kirchhoff vacuum". Planck proposed , if light quanta
> comes to the space of absolute black body and does not
> reflect back the death of warmth and radiation will come.
> As such death isn't observed Planck suggested an idea:
> absolute black body radiates light quanta, which is called
> Planck,s coefficient (h).
> The Planck,s coefficient (h) means the inner impulse of particle.
Yes. it is units of action, or flux, Carver Mead calls them fluxoids.
> It means, it doesn't depend on another forces.
> The same is taken place with the speed of light quantum.
> Its speed doesn't depend on another forces, another sources.
> The physicists say that light quantum has Planck,s coefficient
> equal to one (h=1) and its speed is also equal to one (c=1).
We also see action at light speed locally, but action may be slower or
faster relatively.
Mead points out that the speed of quantum action is actually twice
light speed, but we only see light speed because the action has two
components, lateral and transverse such that the lateral speed is c=1.
> Thus we can understand the interaction between impulse
> and speed of light quanta, why light quanta has the same
> constant qualities of impulse and speed .
> But if the impulse and speed of light quanta don't depend
> on another forces and sources so, it means
> light quanta is independent , privileged particle.
I would disagree, or not say it that way. If it was independent we
could not slow light down, in a cold consondate. Locally it may still
be light speed, but what is manifest in our realm is slow light.
The light is not clocked independently but is clocked by its surroundings.
> ============ ==
> I tried to explain my ideas simply.
> I don't know if you understand me.
I think I understand you. Your metaphysical model is very cool.
However, when it comes to physics, I am not interested in metaphysical
models. Experiment is the only way to see exactly what is happening.
I do not expect that nature observes any such model.
> Maybe you, like others, will ignore my article.
> But it means nothing. I know that I am right.
> Why?
> Before everything has begun from VACUUM,
> and still nobody knows what it is.
I see no reason to not consider the vacuum ordinary energy from the
early universe consisting of uniform low frequency signals at about 3
degrees kelvin and down. It looks like zero because it is the lowest
energy. There is no lower energy it can flow to or be absorbed by.
I can't say how much of the 185 GeV/cm^3 is made of light (two
potentials) and how much is neutrinos (one potential) but I can say
with some confidence that it is composed of fluxoids or h units of
action.
We find increacing energy density of photons in an inverse relation,
from the highest energy down to the zero point. It is reasonable to
expect this relation to continue below the zero point down to the
energy of h, a single fluxoid. This is sufficient to account for the
vacuum energy. We can explain why we do not normally measure below
the zero point. There is no reason to think it is somehow different
than other energy.
> =========
http://www.socratus .com
What you say is true, for the most part, but is not the complete
truth. It may be suffucuent truth for most purposes but is not
sufficient to help me map quantum configuration state space to our
space and time.
For example, you make the quanta round so pi falls out easily. The
quanta is an orthogonal twist, not a circle, according to measurement,
I need to look a little more deeply to see how pi emerges. I will not
accept anything by definition.
I also object to putting God in the quanta. God gets in the quanta
because it's action is determined by the entire universe acting around
it. Its being is a simple propensity to act, consiousness or choice
belongs to the arrangement of the quantum system it belongs to, not
the quanta intrisically. Uncertainty is accounted for by missing
information about the quantum arrangement as we most often only
observe events representing a sparce random sampling of the quantum.
Where we have complete information, there is zero uncertainty.
I do think there is value in your model which is more sencible than
the standard model in my book. It just is not enough for me and I
choose to separate the spiriitual from the physical in the context of
science.
Jim
"Jim Whitescarver" <jimscarver@gmail.com>