interested

Is it possible to distort space?

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, interested said:

It is clear that the casimir effect exists between the plates, this effect must also exist in materials between atoms.

 

Why must it? Give me a physics justification.

13 hours ago, interested said:

I read some where on this forum that space does not exist without quantum fluctuations. So restricting said quantum fluctuations might cause space to shrink also.

If you speculate, you need a model.

13 hours ago, interested said:

Gravity is caused by the stretching of space due to mass, it just kind of followed.

Gravity is the curvature of space due to mass.

13 hours ago, interested said:

And then I remembered this I saw posted earlier, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam and found this and tons of other stuff https://www.space.com/29629-quantum-foam-bubbly-universe-search.html.

Pop-sci article are no substitute for doing actual science.

13 hours ago, interested said:

Viewing the absorption of quantum foam by mass as gravity and the none absorption of quantum foam as dark energy, is an interesting concept. 

Model?

13 hours ago, interested said:

The idea of being able to suppress it in any way or increase via the use of radio waves/ fluctuating magnetic fields etc was to me intriguing.

Great. It has no place as an assertion here unless you have some science to back it up.

 

 

 

 

12 hours ago, interested said:

So you think the work of Physicists looking into Quantum Foam and other theories to try and unify quantum theory and relativity is WAG or BS or something in Latin. I guess your just being Strange and not Interested :) 

I think your musings on the topic are almost physics-free, and constitute a WAG. The physicists working on the problem are doing actual physics. You are not.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Casimir effect cannot exist between 'real' quantum particles, such as atoms. Real particles and virtual particles are both a manifestation of the field.

And although you could get interactions between photons if the EM field is strong enough ( see thread in Physics 'gravitational equivalent of Schwinger limit' ), I have a feeling any space-time distortion would be due to the intensity of the EM field, and not the absence of virtual particles from interaction with radio waves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, swansont said:

The physicists working on the problem are doing actual physics. 

 

22 hours ago, swansont said:

nd then I remembered this I saw posted earlier, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam and found this and tons of other stuff https://www.space.com/29629-quantum-foam-bubbly-universe-search.html.

Is the Quantum foam theory not developed by physicists. Why is this theory not of interest and declared by you to be pop science when other theories are not. 

22 hours ago, swansont said:

Why must it? Give me a physics justification.

If two closely placed plates restrict the bandwidth of fluctuations then why would it not also apply between closely placed atoms or even inside of atoms. between individual quarks, it is very plausible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, interested said:

Is the Quantum foam theory not developed by physicists. Why is this theory not of interest and declared by you to be pop science when other theories are not. 

The problem is not with the theory but your garbled representation of it and your kludging a few keywords together as wild guesswork. 

43 minutes ago, interested said:

it is very plausible

No it really isn’t 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, interested said:

Is the Quantum foam theory not developed by physicists.

As far as I know it is.

Quote

Why is this theory not of interest and declared by you to be pop science when other theories are not. 

You appear to misunderstand the objection here. It is not that the theories are pop-science. It is that you are relying on pop-science explanations of the theories to inform your conjecture. Such summaries are of insufficient depth, and are often simplified to the point that they are wrong. 

To paraphrase something from blogger ZapperZ, when you reap pop-science you are not learning to do science. You are learning about science.

Put another way, if you want to come up with a new theory, you need to do science. Pop-sci explanations do not give you the required tools.

Quote

If two closely placed plates restrict the bandwidth of fluctuations then why would it not also apply between closely placed atoms or even inside of atoms. between individual quarks, it is very plausible.

How would you apply the boundary conditions that give rise to the Casimir force, when using atoms?  Why would these conditions be the same?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, interested said:

Is the Quantum foam theory not developed by physicists. Why is this theory not of interest and declared by you to be pop science when other theories are not. 

It isn't a theory, simply a speculative concept.

Quote

If two closely placed plates restrict the bandwidth of fluctuations then why would it not also apply between closely placed atoms or even inside of atoms. between individual quarks, it is very plausible.

The Casimir effect concerns EMFs and quantum fluctuations.

Atoms and quarks are dominated by the strong and weak nuclear forces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, beecee said:

The Casimir effect concerns EMFs and quantum fluctuations.

I know

 

12 hours ago, beecee said:

Atoms and quarks are dominated by the strong and weak nuclear forces.

I know this also BUT the plates demonstrating the Casimir effect are also made of Atoms and Quarks, so why would a similar restriction of quantum fluctuations between atoms not appear similar to between the plates.

 

12 hours ago, beecee said:

It isn't a theory, simply a speculative concept.

What is the difference between a speculative concept and a theory, it appears to have lots of maths involved.

 

20 hours ago, swansont said:

Why would these conditions be the same?

Why wouldnt they produce the same effect

20 hours ago, swansont said:

How would you apply the boundary conditions that give rise to the Casimir force, when using atoms?

Good question, I will pull out my school books and see what I can fathom, and then try and get to grips with the math editor on this forum, derivations from first principles as a performing monkey were easy when I graduated 20+ years ago, I am a trifle rusty now and no longer a trained monkey, but I guess its like riding a bike, and it might amuse me to have a bash. Looking at the molecular level say air or iron what would you say is the gap between the molecules. How large are atoms and how much empty space do you have inside of them? Clearly the gap is a lot smaller than the gap between the plates in the Casimir effect. 

21 hours ago, Strange said:

No it really isn’t 

Why not?

Edited by interested

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, interested said:

I know this also BUT the plates demonstrating the Casimir effect are also made of Atoms and Quarks, so why would a similar restriction of quantum fluctuations between atoms not appear similar to between the plates.

The effect depends on the fact the plates are conductors. This, like many other things, is a property of the bulk material not the atoms it is made of. A single atom is not a conductor or an insulator. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, interested said:

I know this also BUT the plates demonstrating the Casimir effect are also made of Atoms and Quarks, so why would a similar restriction of quantum fluctuations between atoms not appear similar to between the plates.

As Strange has noted, the plates are conductors. One atom is not a conductor. One atom does not behave the same way as Avogadro's number of atoms, especially in a liquid or solid.

4 hours ago, interested said:

What is the difference between a speculative concept and a theory, it appears to have lots of maths involved.

In addition, a theory has actually been tested and compared to experiment. Which you can do, because of the maths.

4 hours ago, interested said:

Why wouldnt they produce the same effect

Why would they? See above.

4 hours ago, interested said:

Good question, I will pull out my school books and see what I can fathom, and then try and get to grips with the math editor on this forum, derivations from first principles as a performing monkey were easy when I graduated 20+ years ago, I am a trifle rusty now and no longer a trained monkey, but I guess its like riding a bike, and it might amuse me to have a bash. Looking at the molecular level say air or iron what would you say is the gap between the molecules. How large are atoms and how much empty space do you have inside of them? Clearly the gap is a lot smaller than the gap between the plates in the Casimir effect. 

How did we get from trying to induce the Casimir effect with radio waves to this, and from distorting space to what happens inside a bulk material, anyway? Is it possible for you to focus on one issue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, interested said:

I know this also BUT the plates demonstrating the Casimir effect are also made of Atoms and Quarks, so why would a similar restriction of quantum fluctuations between atoms not appear similar to between the plates.

I'm open for correction here, but I would say simply because the strong nuclear force, drowns out any observed effect attributed to the Casimir effect.

Quote

What is the difference between a speculative concept and a theory, it appears to have lots of maths involved.

A scientific theory is the best explanation/model, supported by available evidence that we have. Scientific theories grow in certainty over time and as they continue to match observational and experimental data and making valid predictions. Speculation is an idea or hypothesis that lacks any supportive evidence.

Quote

Why wouldnt they produce the same effect

I believe they do, but I refer you back to my first answer. [again I am open for correction]

 

Edited by beecee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, beecee said:

the strong nuclear force, drowns out any observed effect attributed to the Casimir effect.

Just to clarify here: are you suggesting that quantum fluctuations/foam are prevented by strong nuclear forces, or that the casimir effect still exists inside of materials but is just drowned out ie insignificant.

 

12 hours ago, beecee said:

A scientific theory is the best explanation/model, supported by available evidence that we have. Scientific theories grow in certainty over time and as they continue to match observational and experimental data and making valid predictions. Speculation is an idea or hypothesis that lacks any supportive evidence.

 

19 hours ago, swansont said:

In addition, a theory has actually been tested and compared to experiment. Which you can do, because of the maths.

Why is quantum foam theory not a theory it has the maths and using arxiv in the search throws up this https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0309016 and this https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0405078 . The above link also has maths. 

Edit: this link is more receent but you need to log in to get details https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2170763_'Dark_Matter'_as_a_Quantum_Foam_In-Flow_Effect

Edited by interested

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, interested said:

Why is quantum foam theory not a theory

It is a speculative idea with no evidence. (Re-read the definitions you quoted)

also, Cahill is a crank. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, interested said:

Why is quantum foam theory not a theory it has the maths and using arxiv in the search throws up this https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0309016 and this https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0405078 . The above link also has maths. 

Excuse me? Who has said that quantum foam is not a theory? Perhaps the issue here is reading comprehension; I said the opposite of that a few posts back. The problem isn't the physics, it is you, trying to extrapolate on your limited knowledge of the physics.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Strange said:

It is a speculative idea with no evidence. (Re-read the definitions you quoted)

also, Cahill is a crank. 

I dont know Cahill so couldnt comment. Which definitions are you referring too?

8 hours ago, swansont said:

Excuse me? Who has said that quantum foam is not a theory? Perhaps the issue here is reading comprehension; I said the opposite of that a few posts back. The problem isn't the physics, it is you, trying to extrapolate on your limited knowledge of the physics.

 

Strange appears to indicate its not a theory directly before your post.

Is Quantum foam theory speculative or a theory whats the difference, it is not my theory. But it claims to agree with much of Relativity except the little bit about dark matter, which the holographic universe idea does not need either. Clearly there are different theories out there which might give some insight into how space could be manipulated. 

What I have been trying to do with this thread was to ask people using their limited knowledge of physics is it possible to distort space in any way.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, interested said:

Which definitions are you referring too?

You quoted beecee and swansont providing definitions of "theory" and then asked what "theory" means.

2 minutes ago, interested said:

What I have been trying to do with this thread was to ask people

The trouble is you don't just ask questions. You present your own ideas created by stringing buzzwords together in meaningless ways.

For example. You keep making up stuff like this: 

3 minutes ago, interested said:

But it claims to agree with much of Relativity except the little bit about dark matter, which the holographic universe idea does not need either.

Whenever you are asked for citations to support your claims that quantum foam or the holographic principle get rid of the need for dark matter you just change the subject or drag some other irrelevant topic into the discussion.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, interested said:

Just to clarify here: are you suggesting that quantum fluctuations/foam are prevented by strong nuclear forces, or that the casimir effect still exists inside of materials but is just drowned out ie insignificant.

As I did allude to, I'm not 100% sure which is technically right, or even if that can be determined: The point though is that quantum fluctuations/Casimir effect are not observed in such situations.

 

Quote

Why is quantum foam theory not a theory it has the maths and using arxiv in the search throws up this https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0309016 and this https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0405078 . The above link also has maths. 

Quantum foam,  string theory and such, are  elegant and mathematically beautiful "theories" that "seem"  to give reasonable explanations to the way the quantum world operates. And they have been formulated by professional, credentialed experts in the field. Still they do not align with the defined meaning of a "scientific theory" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory 

Quote

 

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested, in accordance with the scientific method, using a predefined protocol of observation and experiment.[1][2]Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.[3]

The definition of a scientific theory (often contracted to "theory" for the sake of brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacularusage of the word "theory".[4][Note 1] In everyday speech, "theory" can imply that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess,[4] the opposite of its meaning in science. These different usages are comparable to the opposing usages of "prediction" in science versus everyday speech, where it denotes a mere hope.

 

Again, while even many scientists refer to "quantum foam theory" and "string theory"  as theories, [ because of their superior explanations and beauty]  and while such theories are elegant and mathematically beautiful, they are not scientific theories as defined. In essence scientists are being human and using "theory" as is used in every day speech.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, interested said:

 Strange appears to indicate its not a theory directly before your post.

I have no clue how you reached that conclusion from what Strange posted. No mention of quantum foam whatsoever.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 3/19/2018 at 6:53 PM, beecee said:

As I did allude to, I'm not 100% sure which is technically right, or even if that can be determined: The point though is that quantum fluctuations/Casimir effect are not observed in such situations.

 

Quantum foam,  string theory and such, are  elegant and mathematically beautiful "theories" that "seem"  to give reasonable explanations to the way the quantum world operates. And they have been formulated by professional, credentialed experts in the field. Still they do not align with the defined meaning of a "scientific theory" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory 

Again, while even many scientists refer to "quantum foam theory" and "string theory"  as theories, [ because of their superior explanations and beauty]  and while such theories are elegant and mathematically beautiful, they are not scientific theories as defined. In essence scientists are being human and using "theory" as is used in every day speech.

 

Thanks for the answer. 

On 3/20/2018 at 8:49 AM, swansont said:

I have no clue

No comment :)

 

Edited by interested

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now