Second Essay For The Gravitational Research Foundation

[Dubbelosix]

Also, the ground state is the lowest energy state, but this does not mean it has reached zero point. You are very much wrong on this subject and should be ignored. Wikipedia does not support you either, you simply don't understand what a ground state oscillator is, but I am not surprised since you are not a physicist.

[Dubbelosix]

Zero point means your system has reached zero Kelvin: No system, and this is an experimental FACT, can reach a Zero Kelvin state. This would violate the third law of thermodynamics.

Edited January 2, 2019 by Dubbelosix

[Dubbelosix]

In fact, you're so wrong on this subject, its clear what you have done. You have mistaken the term ''a zero point energy'' as a literal term of zero point field, which is zero in classical physics. This is why chemists don't care about the technicalities, because it doesn't bother them in their theory. The obvious mistake you have made is that there is no true zero point field, in fact, the terminology zero point energy refers to a residual energy which is added to the system so it can never reach a true zero point state.

[exchemist]

Also, the ground state is the lowest energy state, but this does not mean it has reached zero point. You are very much wrong on this subject and should be ignored. Wikipedia does not support you either, you simply don't understand what a ground state oscillator is, but I am not surprised since you are not a physicist.

Just read these words:

 

"The ground state of a quantum-mechanical system is its lowest-energy state; the energy of the ground state is known as the zero-point energy of the system."

 

This is not chemistry. This is Wikipaedia's physics page on what a ground state is. 

 

There is no such thing as "zero point". It is not a description of a temperature, as you seem to think. The term is "zero point energy" -  and absolute zero has nothing to do with it.  

Edited January 2, 2019 by exchemist

[Dubbelosix]

Yeah I know you have some mental block on this subject, but this is becoming retarded. Do you not understand that a zero point energy is a correction term to an oscillator of the form

 

[math]+ \frac{1}{2}\hbar \omega[/math]

 

well do you? Do you in fact know anything about the terminology? This is a rhetorical question, the answer is clearly no. It has been known for a while that a ground state oscillator does not mean a true zero point field. You need to go do some reading before you embarrass yourself further.

Edited January 2, 2019 by Dubbelosix

[Dubbelosix]

Since you are so favorable of wikipedia, without properly understanding it, I chance this on you:

 

''Zero-point energy

 

Zero-point energy is the difference between the lowest possible energy that a quantum mechanical system may have, and the classical minimum energy of the system. Unlike in classical mechanics, quantum systems constantly fluctuate in their lowest energy state due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. As well as atoms and molecules, the empty space of the vacuum has these properties. According to quantum field theory, the universe can be thought of not as isolated particles but continuous fluctuating fields: matter fields, whose quanta are fermions, and force fields, whose quanta are bosons. All these fields have zero-point energy. These fluctuating zero-point fields lead to a kind of reintroduction of an aether in physics, since some systems can detect the existence of this energy. However this aether cannot be thought of as a physical medium if it is to be Lorentz invariant such that there is no contradiction with Einstein's theory of special relativity.''

[exchemist]

Yeah I know you have some mental block on this subject, but this is becoming retarded. Do you not understand that a zero point energy is a correction term to an oscillator of the form

 

[math]+ \frac{1}{2}\hbar \omega[/math]

 

well do you? Do you in fact know anything about the terminology? This is a rhetorical question, the answer is clearly no. It has been known for a while that a ground state oscillator does not mean a true zero point field. You need to go do some reading before you embarrass yourself further.

Your essay was rejected, right, Gareth?

 

Whereas I have a degree in chemistry from Oxford (1976), and quantum chemistry was my supplementary subject. 

 

Readers are invited to make their own judgement as to who is right and who is wrong. 

Edited January 2, 2019 by exchemist

[Dubbelosix]

And to clear what it means, the term zero point field:

 

''

Second quantum theory

Soon, the idea of zero-point energy attracted the attention of Albert Einstein and his assistant Otto Stern.^[32] In 1913 they published a paper that attempted to prove the existence of zero-point energy by calculating the specific heat of hydrogen gas and compared it with the experimental data. However, after assuming they had succeeded, they retracted support for the idea shortly after publication because they found Planck's second theory may not apply to their example. In a letter to Paul Ehrenfest of the same year Einstein declared zero-point energy “dead as a doornail”^[33] Zero-point energy was also invoked by Peter Debye,^[34] who noted that zero-point energy of the atoms of a crystal lattice would cause a reduction in the intensity of the diffracted radiation in X-ray diffraction even as the temperature approached absolute zero. In 1916 Walther Nernst proposed that empty space was filled with zero-point electromagnetic radiation.^[35] With the development of general relativity Einstein found the energy density of the vacuum to contribute towards a cosmological constant in order to obtain static solutions to his field equations; the idea that empty space, or the vacuum, could have some intrinsic energy associated to it had returned, with Einstein stating in 1920:''

[Dubbelosix]

Your essay was rejected, right, Gareth?

 

The essay hasn't been submitted yet, so no.

[exchemist]

The essay hasn't been submitted yet, so no.

Well it most certainly will be, if you leave howlers like that in it.  

Edited January 2, 2019 by exchemist

[Dubbelosix]

Well it most certainly will be, if you leave howlers like that in it.  

 

 

Ah so you prove yourself as nothing but a troll, or a dim-witted idiot who doesn't understand technicalities of terminology.

 

You suck.

[Dubbelosix]

Just some icing on the cake to absolutely prove that exchemist is an idiot:

 

''

The laws of thermodynamics indicate that absolute zero cannot be reached using only thermodynamic means, because the temperature of the substance being cooled approaches the temperature of the cooling agent asymptotically, and a system at absolute zero still possesses quantum mechanical zero-point energy, the energy of its ground state at absolute ...

Absolute zero - Wikipedia''

[exchemist]

 

Just some icing on the cake to absolutely prove that exchemist is an idiot:

 

''

The laws of thermodynamics indicate that absolute zero cannot be reached using only thermodynamic means, because the temperature of the substance being cooled approaches the temperature of the cooling agent asymptotically, and a system at absolute zero still possesses quantum mechanical zero-point energy, the energy of its ground state at absolute ...

Absolute zero - Wikipedia''

 

......thus demonstrating that you cannot read.

 

This is saying exactly what I have been saying, namely that a system at absolute zero still possesses zero point energy. So, quite clearly, you don't need to remove it to attain absolute zero.   

 

But go ahead: your essay will be rejected for many other reasons beside this misconception. 

Edited January 2, 2019 by exchemist

[Dubbelosix]

No you don't understand, because you said a true zero point state can exist, when I have repeatedly told you that experimentally a system cannot reach a true absolute zero state. I also said to you that a ground state [is] the zero point energy correction - which also means the ground state is not a true zero point field.

 

You can try and backtrack as much as you like, I know fine well, as anyone else does, what you objected to and what you claimed was wrong. Everything I have said, here and in my essay, is correct within standard terminology and understanding.

[Dubbelosix]

Maybe for clarity, you would like to express exactly what it is about my statement in my essay you disagree with?

 

I said in my essay that it is an experimental fact that a system cannot cool down to absolute temperatures. You say the article supports what you say, yet you don't seem to see my essay says exactly the same thing.

[OceanBreeze]

Very well, the link is here: https://phys.org/news/2015-04-gravitational-constant-vary.html

 

 

 

Oh, that is the "controversial" 2015 study.

 

Lets see what wikipedia says about it:

 

A controversial 2015 study of some previous measurements of G, by Anderson et al., suggested that most of the mutually exclusive values in high-precision measurements of G can be explained by a periodic variation.^[47] The variation was measured as having a period of 5.9 years, similar to that observed in length-of-day (LOD) measurements, hinting at a common physical cause which is not necessarily a variation in G. A response was produced by some of the original authors of the G measurements used in Anderson et al.^[48] This response notes that Anderson et al. not only omitted measurements, they also used the time of publication not the time the experiments were performed. A plot with estimated time of measurement from contacting original authors seriously degrades the length of day correlation. Also taking the data collected over a decade by Karagioz and Izmailov shows no correlation with length of day measurements.^[48][49] As such the variations in Gmost likely arise from systematic measurement errors which have not properly been accounted for. Under the assumption that the physics of type Ia supernovae are universal, analysis of observations of 580 type Ia supernovae has shown that the gravitational constant has varied by less than one part in ten billion per year over the last nine billion years according to Mould et al. (2014).

 

whoops, no variation

[Dubbelosix]

What isn't controversial these days? Anything that might suggest a deviation in the standard model, will always be met with skepticism.

 

Regardless, there is a difference in the measurements; I did not embrace this theory because it sounded good, I embraced the variation as a result of a permittivity and permeability variation from my knowledge of gravitational aether physics.