Time - the Real Zero-Point Energy, Not Virtual Particles!

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 07:06 PM
link   
This is pretty cool... This contains some of the conclusions I couldnt help but to come to regarding the nature of space/vacuum:

www.vacuum-mechanics.com...

One thing im not sure is why they/he refers to the particles as black holes... but im sure it has to do with the inability for anyone to know what the heck matter/energy is, where it came from and why and how it exists in the stable forms it does..

edit on 28-2-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by mbkennel

Electric and magnetic fields exist everywhere without requiring a charge in the specific location, but they interact with charges. Light does travel far and long and hit and interact with particles if the particles are charged. If it is a 'vacuum' there are no (real) particles to hit.


How do electric and magnetic fields exist everywhere without requiring a charge in the specific location? Literally every point in space is electromagnetic field lines from one side of the universe to the other?


Yes. That's what a classical field theory means. Everywhere in space there is a vector which has a magnitude in the x, y,z directions for the electric field and another one for the magnetic field.

It gets conceptually pretty complicated with quantum mechanics (you have a wave function of functions).


this question might be relevant here;how long on average does an electron stay excited after recieving photon? (depend on photon energy?)


Well, usually this is in the context of an electron & proton system (an atom). Under normal circumstances the electrons squish in as close as they can to the nucleus (because the nucleus is positive and the electrons are negative) limited only by laws of quantum mechanics (which explains why they don't crash into the nucleus: there is no allowed quantum state where that happens.

There is no truly 'average' time, it depends on the specific atom and the particular energy levels you are coming from and going to. But in most cases it's microseconds say. There are some cases when the decay rate is much longer, that's known as 'flourescence'.


if there were 100 atoms in a row and the first one got hit with a photon, can it theoretically pass on that original photon without losing any of the original energy to each subsequent atom, if they were in a vacuum would it be like a perfect newton's cradle?


If you had 100 atoms in a row, and their electrons were in the same excited state (higher energy) and you hit the first one the right way, then subsequent atoms can emit photons which 'add up' in the same energy & momentum state perfectly evenly. If you add some feedback to make it self-sustaining, this is called a 'laser'.


Does this mean the vacuum is a superconductor since it can carry em radiation without resistance?


Conductivity refers to motion of physical charges (almost always electrons), not electromagnetic waves. Electromagnetic waves propagate on their own, and electric & magnetic fields also push around charged particles, and moving particles also make electromagnetic waves. (this is known as an 'antenna')

Yes, I guess you could say the vacuum is a 'superconductor' for electromagnetic waves, but people don't really talk that way since it was always pretty obvious this was the normal state of things. Whereas for a superconductor, it is something exotic and rare, because in most cases electric current in a physical medium will have some losses as the electrons bounce off of other matter. Superconductivity is a phenomenon whereby quantum mechanics magically makes electrons which should be bouncing off stuff not bounce.

Think of it this way. If you're in an open field, then it's not abnormal to be able to run from one side to another unmolested. But imagine you are in a very crowded arena with people everywhere. You are always bouncing off of them or trying to evade them. A superconductor would be magic powers which let you simply run straight through and magically avoid colliding with all the obstacles.


edit on 26-2-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)
edit on 28-2-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)
edit on 28-2-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by mbkennel


Yes. That's what a classical field theory means. Everywhere in space there is a vector which has a magnitude in the x, y,z directions for the electric field and another one for the magnetic field.

It gets conceptually pretty complicated with quantum mechanics (you have a wave function of functions).


Are there regions that are 0 for electric field and magnetic field on the vector? Or does the derived omnipresent field model imply that reality is a fabric of fields. To me this is very important,, whether actual nothing exists and energy matter and their fields are material activities on a canvas of infinite or finite nothingness, or whether the entirety of the universe is a closed/contained/finite system where nothingness does not exist, but every Planck's length is a necessary "part/point" of the system and vacuum would not be an actual nothingness, but just an area of relatively less density regarding matter content, when compared to the dense energy/matter regions of the universe we are familiar with, galaxies.

Are the energetic/material particles that make up galaxies traveling through a background space of nothing, or does each one have a starting point in space-time which they drag along with them as they travel through time. How do you think the the universe is? What do you think of space and energy/matter?



Well, usually this is in the context of an electron & proton system (an atom). Under normal circumstances the electrons squish in as close as they can to the nucleus (because the nucleus is positive and the electrons are negative) limited only by laws of quantum mechanics (which explains why they don't crash into the nucleus: there is no allowed quantum state where that happens.


Does quantum mechanics really explain from a level of understanding why the electron doesnt crash into the nucleus? Or is that just what they have observed and so their models reflect this activity, and they have no idea as to why it does not? I have seen some lectures on the topic. I think some said that it has to do with the constant energetic frequency at which the nucleus vibrates and these waves of energy ( or i guess photons or phonons) coupled with the electrons natural wave function and angular momentum constantly keep them from crashing, I dont know i think im remmbering wrong because that seem wrong, because that seems like the reason they would collide, what makes proton have postive charge has to do with its energy frequency and spin and so those details would cause them to attract. So I think once again the vacuum could come into play, I think it may have to do with the protons energy and movements doing something to the local space surrounding the proton creating a 'force field' which the electron cannot penetrate. In quantum theory does this electron crashing into proton problem have to do with strong force and/or electroweak force?




If you had 100 atoms in a row, and their electrons were in the same excited state (higher energy) and you hit the first one the right way, then subsequent atoms can emit photons which 'add up' in the same energy & momentum state perfectly evenly. If you add some feedback to make it self-sustaining, this is called a 'laser'.


Well I was also thinking in terms of how radio transmitters can send clear signals over large distances. Does the signal interact with every atom in the air in comes in contact with, and does this exicte each atom and then the atom passes on the RF signal to the next, a game of perfectly played telephone all the way to our radio receptors? And the reason radio transmissions get weak over distance is because eventually atoms absorb the energy and dont transmit it, or eventually a high enough quantity of atoms that arent air absorb it, or can it also have to do with the curvature of earth?



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by mbkennel

Conductivity refers to motion of physical charges (almost always electrons), not electromagnetic waves. Electromagnetic waves propagate on their own, and electric & magnetic fields also push around charged particles, and moving particles also make electromagnetic waves. (this is known as an 'antenna')


yep I see.. But electricity does have some relation to EM radiation. Are the waves of energy in a conducting wire electromagnetic, and its because the electrons are being 'moved'? The energy of electricity comes from the movement of the charges, and the movement of charges is the cause of EM radiation?



Yes, I guess you could say the vacuum is a 'superconductor' for electromagnetic waves, but people don't really talk that way since it was always pretty obvious this was the normal state of things. Whereas for a superconductor, it is something exotic and rare, because in most cases electric current in a physical medium will have some losses as the electrons bounce off of other matter. Superconductivity is a phenomenon whereby quantum mechanics magically makes electrons which should be bouncing off stuff not bounce.


Super conductors are quite cool. I know they rely on temperature and it is easier to make them in space because of the temperatures. I saw there are two leading theories on how they work; resonating-valence-bond theory, and spin fluctuation. Well whats the real cause of resistance, is it other electrons snagging electrons in the material, or is it nucleons interfering with the electrons travel and wave? Or other kinds of fields, which are changed when material is supercooled... does it have to do with instead of the electrons exerting force around them creating the outward magnetic field, that field is directed forward and beyond the electron allowing it to have no drag in forward movement (that sounds like it might be what spin fluctuation is about). It also could have something to do with vacuum in the material equalling the material and so then its just like electrons traveling through vacuum..,or some type of free association of energy levels where even the quarks of the materials properties start to behave more similarly to the electron and aid in its travel or energy travel... I dont know, what ever it is this stuff is super fascinating. Of course anything that exists even remotely similar to what the universe is and can do is completely interesting and weird, with nothing to base it off of, any way it exists its going to be weird when there is no such thing as normal,so I cant say this universe is the weirdest thing I can think of ( because I cant even think all about it, or know all about it) but also because we dont know its full story or situation, and also because, like I said, any "universe' that exists or ever existed or ever will, any system, is equally as weird. The interesting thing is how well it works, how vast it is, how complex it is, how much of it there is,; such a vast array of abilities for a singularly related system, yet such a limited quality of basic stable constituents, Its existence is the most impressive thing I can think of, its the only thing I can think of. sorry got carried away with some philosophic ramble.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
[
No it's not moot. It's finite existence, among other things, prevents it from being infinitely old. The rate of time is irrelevant.

Did this point mass create itself at some point in time?

on the contrary, the rate of time is extremely relevant. What is irrelevant is the flawed einstein's gr

The point mass was created by God.
You will never be able to take God out of the equation, try hard as you may.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection
 




You will never be able to take God out of the equation, try hard as you may.

Show me one post, just one, where I have done so. My bottom line is that I don't believe matter or energy can be self-existent. I can't buy into any theory that requires the Universe to have created itself out of nothing.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection
 




You will never be able to take God out of the equation, try hard as you may.

Show me one post, just one, where I have done so. My bottom line is that I don't believe matter or energy can be self-existent. I can't buy into any theory that requires the Universe to have created itself out of nothing.


And this is the largest paradox that exists. And this is the reason that this universe can literally be anything, anywhere, in anytime, and I wonder if its possible for entities trapped in a system such as this to ever truly comprehend what the system it is trapped in is.

anyway the paradox is that, Something exists (seemingly lots of it)... Something cannot come from nothing... which means Something ALWAYS has had to exist... Which also doesnt make sense


How can the past have no beginning or end.. how can you (hypothetically) travel an infinite eternity into the past, and still have infinite infinite eternities to travel.

What would be the odds this universe is the first time something has ever happened in the history of history of things being able to exist and happen. What would be the odds that this universe is the only something that has ever existed and it just happens to be a specific amount of quanta of a quality that can do what it can do and thats that...if ALL that exists is this universe... to me that is just as bizarre as anything else, because that would mean this is the ultimate natural reality...and that would just raise questions about why the ultimate natural reality is like this..can do this, why there is only one of a similar kind system,





new topics
top topics
 
8
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join