It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The mathematics of hypothetical extraction of energy from the vacuum

page: 3
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 06:41 AM
link   
In both Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) and Stochastic Electrodynamics (SED), consistency with the principle of Lorentz covariance and with the magnitude of the Planck Constant requires vacuum energy to have a much larger value - 10^113 Joules per cubic meter.

Quantum vacuum energy density may not necessarily be equivalent to observed cosmological constant.


edit on 18/12/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 06:53 AM
link   
reply to post by LightSpeedDriver
 

just a little side note to solar power in australia they have developed paint that acts like solar panels and will give off power even in starlight melbourne university professor developed it so you can basically paint your whole roof with this stuff and the paint is water based
so there is hope.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 07:12 AM
link   
I think this discussion is a prime example of the damage that Quantum Mechanics has done to ordinary people's perception of reality. A vacuum is a nothing. If you are taking energy from it, it isn't a vacuum. Our solar system has no vacuum, it is flooded with electromagnetic phenomena of all types. So the point is moot, because even if you could tap this mythological vacuum, you wouldn't be living anywhere near one.

This notion of borrowing energy from the vacuum is an artefact of the current standard model of physics. This borrowing was designed as a purely mathematical patch to cover over some anomaly elsewhere in the math. The whole concept is flawed through and through.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 07:24 AM
link   
reply to post by yampa
 


Your comment is a prime example of some one who doesn't understand Quantum Mechanics. There is no such thing as an empty vacuum, because there is always energy popping into and out of existence. This concept is completely in line with the law of thermodynamics. Without getting into the details of it, that energy is pretty much coming from 'nothing'. So even though you might claim the vacuum is 'nothing', that doesn't necessarily mean you can't get 'something from nothing'. Scientists have proven vacuum energy exists, see this thread:

Light Created From Vacuum
edit on 18-12-2011 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by yampa
 


Your comment is a prime example of some one who doesn't understand Quantum Mechanics. There is no such thing as an empty vacuum, because there is always energy popping into and out of existence. This concept is completely in line with the law of thermodynamics. Without getting into the details of it, that energy is pretty much coming from 'nothing'. So even though you might claim the vacuum is 'nothing', that doesn't necessarily mean you can't get 'something from nothing'. Scientists have proven vacuum energy exists, see this thread:

Light Created From Vacuum
edit on 18-12-2011 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)


I think this is an example of someone who doesn't know the meaning of the words 'nothing' and 'vacuum' and 'nowhere'.

If your primary argument is that physical reality is based on nothing, then you are not a physicist, you are storyteller.

Oh, and rofl to that 'light from vacuum' article you linked:

"In the Chalmers scientists’ experiments, virtual photons bounce off a “mirror” that vibrates at a speed that is almost as high as the speed of light. The round mirror in the picture is a symbol, and under that is the quantum electronic component (referred to as a SQUID), which acts as a mirror. This makes real photons appear (in pairs) in vacuum. ("

A not real photon was made into two real photons! Wow, that's some great physics there. But of course, the *real* photons don't have any mass, thus are not made of matter. Making them virtual too, I guess.

Please tell us more of this magical not-real physics, great master!
edit on 18-12-2011 by yampa because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by yampa
 




But of course, the *real* photons don't have any mass, thus are not made of matter. Making them virtual too, I guess.


You guess wrong, thats not what the term virtual particle means.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by yampa
 




But of course, the *real* photons don't have any mass, thus are not made of matter. Making them virtual too, I guess.


You guess wrong, thats not what the term virtual particle means.


We are not talking about the mathematics of any virtual particle. We are talking about virtual photons, supposedly produced for real in a lab experiment. And I quote the last link about photons from the vacuum:

"Göran Johansson, Associate Professor of Theoretical Physics, explains that the reason why photons appear in the experiment is that they lack mass.
"Relatively little energy is therefore required in order to excite them out of their virtual state. In principle, one could also create other particles from vacuum, such as electrons or protons, but that would require a lot more energy.""

It's not me saying that photons have no mass (no mass = not a particle) and are thus 'virtual', it is this supposedly qualified physicist.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by yampa
 


No, thats not what he is saying. The produced photons are real photons, but they come from virtual photons. He is not saying produced photons are virtual because they do not have a rest mass.
Massive particle can be virtual or real, just as massless particle can be virtual or real, there is no relationship between the mass and virtual/real state. Only converting virtual massless particles to real massless particles takes far less energy than doing so for massive particles.



no mass = not a particle


That is not correct. Photon has no rest mass, but is still a particle.
edit on 18/12/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by yampa
It's not me saying that photons have no mass (no mass = not a particle) and are thus 'virtual', it is this supposedly qualified physicist.
Both virtual and non virtual photons have zero rest mass.

The difference as I understand it is, if you detect a photon, the fact that you've detected it means it's probably not virtual. Whether it has mass or not isn't of primary importance.

Particles with mass like electrons can be virtual too, but once you detect them, then they are not probably not virtual any longer.

So being virtual isn't related to mass, it's related to detection, sort of. It's not so simple. You can read the link Maslo posted for a better explanation but that seems to be the gist of it to me.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by yampa
 


No, thats not what he is saying. The produced photons are real photons, but they come from virtual photons. He is not saying produced photons are virtual because they do not have a rest mass.
Massive particle can be virtual or real, just as massless particle can be virtual or real, there is no relationship between the mass and virtual/real state. Only converting virtual massless particles to real massless particles takes far less energy than doing so for massive particles.



no mass = not a particle


That is not correct. Photon has no rest mass, but is still a particle.
edit on 18/12/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)


Or said another way - the real photon has mass, that is why it is a particle. The whole 'virtual' thing is a mathematical dodge, wedged into existing theory to explain experimental anomalies or paradoxes caused by ill-defined fields. I'm merely pointing out that a real particle without mass might as well be 'virtual', because they add up to the same thing, that is - effects with no physical mechanism.

"there is no relationship between the mass and virtual/real state" is about the least physical thing a person could ever say about physics. Your only anchors are the mathematics of the 20th century, really, is what you are saying?



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
In both Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) and Stochastic Electrodynamics (SED), consistency with the principle of Lorentz covariance and with the magnitude of the Planck Constant requires vacuum energy to have a much larger value - 10^113 Joules per cubic meter.

Quantum vacuum energy density may not necessarily be equivalent to observed cosmological constant.
I can go along with the second part. It's just a best guess, but it's not yet proven.

Regarding the first part, nature has no requirement to conform to our models. So until any observations are made to support that 10^113 Joules per cubic meter, I think we have ample reason to view it skeptically, as something which is unconfirmed at best and dramatically different from the cosmological constant which MAY be the vacuum energy.

At least the cosmological constant is an observed value.
edit on 18-12-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

The difference as I understand it is, if you detect a photon, the fact that you've detected it means it's probably not virtual. Whether it has mass or not isn't of primary importance.


Whether it has mass is quite important to whether it has physical extension or not. Once upon a time physicists used to believe that their job was to map the physical extents of reality, but no more, it seems.

If you are free to assign properties to vacuums and physical consequences to unmeasurable properties, then yeah, you are totally right, anything can be virtual or not virtual. In fact it can both have mass and not have mass, be real, not real, use energy and not use energy, all in the same non existent period of time.

What wonders the mathematical physics of the 20th century has brought to us! What depth of understanding!



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by yampa
 

Nature is perfectly natural.

The fact that understanding is sometimes hard for some people to achieve, can partly be explained when we expect that our intuition and experience with large objects should also apply to the subatomic world.

Nature has no requirement to conform to our expectations in this regard. If we hope to achieve understanding, it will best be achieved by setting these intuitions and expectations aside, and observing what really happens in nature. You could say it is our expectations of nature that are strange, and not nature itself.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by yampa
 

Nature is perfectly natural.

The fact that understanding is sometimes hard for some people to achieve, can partly be explained when we expect that our intuition and experience with large objects should also apply to the subatomic world.

Nature has no requirement to conform to our expectations in this regard. If we hope to achieve understanding, it will best be achieved by setting these intuitions and expectations aside, and observing what really happens in nature. You could say it is our expectations of nature that are strange, and not nature itself.


You sound like you are reading a script written for you by Richard Feynman. Feynman's speciality was using his intelligence to bully you into accepting that his models are the best models, and making sure you know that asking questions about the reality of these models is not suitable for dead brained regular folks.

I'd never really bothered studying physics until this year, and I had no special objections to current physics. I always just took it for granted that there was some purity to it. But on closer examination, I'm afraid it turns out that this is not really the case. Once I got a good translation of the types of mathematical tricks being used by current physics, I was pretty shocked to see the way it was being misrepresented to the mainstream.

People like Feynman have not maintained their position by having a high standard of mathematical knowledge of the laws of physics. They have maintained it by politicking their own inefficient models through the public relations industry - at all times in heavy connection with the demands of established industrial power.

This notion that the quantum realm is not diagrammable, and is beyond the scope of rational calculation and formal mechanics is just flatly false. Any person with decent common sense should not accept theories from rouge scientists who try to trick you into believing they have some kind of magical mathematics that can track a secret uncharted realm.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by yampa
 




the real photon has mass, that is why it is a particle


Real photon is a massless particle.



The whole 'virtual' thing is a mathematical dodge, wedged into existing theory to explain experimental anomalies or paradoxes caused by ill-defined fields. I'm merely pointing out that a real particle without mass might as well be 'virtual', because they add up to the same thing, that is - effects with no physical mechanism.


Its not a "dodge", virtual particles are experimentally proven.

You are confusing virtual particle and massless particle. And you are forgetting that we are talking about massless particle, not energyless particle. Massless particle has energy which can do work and produce physical effects. Photons can interact electromagnetically, and gravitationally. There can be real massless particles, and well as virtual massive particles.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 09:44 AM
link   
Don't forget the unicorns.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by yampa
I'd never really bothered studying physics until this year
Glad to hear you started studying. Keep doing it.


People like Feynman have not maintained their position by having a high standard of mathematical knowledge of the laws of physics. ..
This notion that the quantum realm is not diagrammable,
This shows you still have more to study. One thing Feynman is famous for is Feynman Diagrams.


Feynman diagrams are a pictorial representation scheme for the mathematical expressions governing the behavior of subatomic particles



Any person with decent common sense should not accept theories from rouge scientists who try to trick you into believing they have some kind of magical mathematics that can track a secret uncharted realm.
Some models are useful. Our model of quantum mechanics is very useful as it makes extremely accurate predictions.

Is it "right"? This seems to suggest it is:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Originally posted by VitalOverdose
reply to post by Nathwa
 


Well it proves that the maths we have been using to simulate atoms and the theories we have come up with about the way they work are correct. It means we are on the right track to understanding how the universe works.





We are indeed clever little monkeys
But by all means if you have different atomic models and images of atoms that look like your models, please share them with us. If you don't, I think we have just cause to be impressed by these images as evidence that our models are on the right track. Some of these shapes in our models are pretty odd, so the matching images generated from real atoms can't just be coincidence, can they?



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Specifically, the difference between virtual particles and real particles is that virtual particles exist solely as a result of Heisenberg Uncertainty, which allows them to form from an otherwise bottomed-out wavefunction for extremely brief periods of time without violating classical energy conservation laws. When you keep a virtual particle pair from annihilating, you have, essentially, cheated Heisenberg Uncertainty and made the particles real. According to Stephen Hawking, black holes should do this all the time, so there's nothing really any special going on when we do it.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Photons don't have rest mass but they are believed to have relativistic mass determined by their frequency, however this is so small I have never seen it demonstrated experimentally; I don't think it's been proven. But it seems pretty likely to be true, it's just too small an effect to measure with current technology.


The pressure exerted by EM radiation has been measured. This pressure is caused by the photons' momentum, which, itself, is due to their relativistic mass.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

I'm not sure my calculator had enough digits anyway (just kidding, 113 is a lot of zeroes though. I thought a googol was a lot and it's something like 10 trillion googols, right?).


I bet your calculator can't handle a googolplex.
And I dare you to ask it to calculate Graham's number.




top topics



 
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join