Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Second Essay For The Gravitational Research Foundation


  • Please log in to reply
117 replies to this topic

#103 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2443 posts

Posted 02 January 2019 - 04:22 PM

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.



#104 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2443 posts

Posted 02 January 2019 - 04:25 PM

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.



#105 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1032 posts

Posted 02 January 2019 - 04:28 PM

Very well, the link is here: https://phys.org/new...stant-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



#106 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2443 posts

Posted 02 January 2019 - 04:30 PM

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.



#107 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2443 posts

Posted 02 January 2019 - 04:31 PM

Also, I remember a small group suggested experimental errors, but it has also been [clearly argued] the variation is too significant to be a simple case of experimental error.



#108 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2488 posts

Posted 02 January 2019 - 04:32 PM

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.

You said this: 

 

"Well almost shielded, since experimentation shows we cannot freeze a system to absolute zero, an indirect evidence of the fluctuations."

 

I am pointing out that the unattainability of absolute zero is not evidence of any quantum process. 



#109 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2443 posts

Posted 02 January 2019 - 04:36 PM

You said this: 

 

"Well almost shielded, since experimentation shows we cannot freeze a system to absolute zero, an indirect evidence of the fluctuations."

 

I am pointing out that the unattainability of absolute zero is not evidence of any quantum process. 

 

 

Did you not read the wiki statements I provided?

 

Secondly, you clearly still don't understand the situation. Do you not understand that zero point energy is a residual fluctuation, a residual motion attributed to the field? Even if you remove all the matter and energy you think exists in a space (as you try to make a perfect vacuum), it doesn't matter what square area of space you measure, there is no such thing as an empty space. The fact systems cannot freeze to absolute zero is often taken as an indirect evidence of quantum fluctuations, so you are absolutely wrong in this instance.



#110 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2488 posts

Posted 02 January 2019 - 04:54 PM

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.

You are still labouring under the delusion that there is something called the "zero-point state" which has something to do with temperature. This is rubbish.

 

Zero point energy is simply the residual energy in the ground state of a QM system. For example, the energy of a harmonic oscillator it is hω/2π. (n +1/2), so when n=0, the zero point energy is  1/2 hω/2π, as you yourself said. Temperature does not come into this anywhere. You also get a zero point energy in the ground state of the particle in a box problem, and in the ground state of bond vibrations and in electronic states in atoms, though not in the case of the particle on a ring, or rotational ground states. 

 

If you present an essay thinking that zero point energy is something to do with absolute zero temperature, you will look a fool. I guarantee it.   


Edited by exchemist, 02 January 2019 - 05:09 PM.


#111 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2488 posts

Posted 02 January 2019 - 05:03 PM

Did you not read the wiki statements I provided?

 

Secondly, you clearly still don't understand the situation. Do you not understand that zero point energy is a residual fluctuation, a residual motion attributed to the field? Even if you remove all the matter and energy you think exists in a space (as you try to make a perfect vacuum), it doesn't matter what square area of space you measure, there is no such thing as an empty space. The fact systems cannot freeze to absolute zero is often taken as an indirect evidence of quantum fluctuations, so you are absolutely wrong in this instance.

This is bilge. You seem to be obsessed with zero point field energy, i.e. the zero point energy of the vacuum, completely ignoring the fact that zero point energy exists in the ground states of matter as well.

 

And as for the notion that the zero point energy of the vacuum has anything to do with inability of matter to reach absolute zero, that is ridiculous. You can only get to absolute zero by extracting thermal energy and you can only extract energy by thermal flow into something colder. So obviously you can never get to absolute zero. It really is that simple. This is not a quantum phenomenon. 

 

Zero point energy does not contribute to temperature, because it is unextractable, whereas by definition temperature is a measure of the potential that heat has to flow. Zero point energy has no potential for flowing as it cannot escape and therefore it is irrelevant to temperature. 

 

If only you spent half the time you devote to exotic maths to actually learning some physics, you would do yourself and the world a big favour. And then you might not get banned from every science forum on the internet apart from this one. And maybe, just maybe, one of your papers might even get accepted, one day.


Edited by exchemist, 02 January 2019 - 05:20 PM.


#112 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2443 posts

Posted 02 January 2019 - 05:03 PM

Another one who doesn't understand it!

 

The vacuum actually was predicted by classical mechanics, to be able to be modeled in a zero temperature state: So no, I am not laboring under any delusion that such terminology exists. What you and the other poster doesn't realize, is that zero kevlin cannot be reached and what we call zero point energy is in fact always a ground residual fluctuation of order

 

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

 

But I have had run-in's with you plenty times, you don't know your physics very well either. Also it is clearly a matter of temperature since it was equivalent to the temperature equation provided by Planck. I could provide this temperature dependence, but I fear it would fall on deaf ears.



#113 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2443 posts

Posted 02 January 2019 - 05:04 PM

This is bilge. You seem to be obsessed with zero point field energy, i.e. the zero point energy of the vacuum, completely ignoring the fact that zero point energy exists in the ground states of matter as well.

 

 

Not in classical mechanics, you fool. Classical mechanics says something completely different and the existence of zero point energy was the result of quantum theory. This has nothing to do with me having an obsession.



#114 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2443 posts

Posted 02 January 2019 - 05:07 PM

If you really care about brushing up on your knowledge, you'll clearly see the fluctuation is a matter of the quantum vacuum, not the classical one

 

https://en.wikipedia...ki/Vacuum_state



#115 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2488 posts

Posted 02 January 2019 - 05:31 PM

Not in classical mechanics, you fool. Classical mechanics says something completely different and the existence of zero point energy was the result of quantum theory. This has nothing to do with me having an obsession.

Eh? 

 

Ah, now I remember...it's been so long....I'd forgotten that one feature of your rather, um, unique mental state is that you cannot argue coherently.

 

Well in that case I'd better bow out now, as I've made my point amply for those with the capacity and interest to follow it.

 

So, back to your mathematical knitting, Reiku, and l look forward to the summary rejection of your essay in due course.   :winknudge:



#116 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2443 posts

Posted 02 January 2019 - 05:39 PM

Stop trolling, exchemist. You don' t know me, so stop acting like you do. Also, stop changing the subject.

 

If you followed the last post, your statement that the existence of the zero point field (is not a quantum phenomenon) was proven incorrect. Suck it up and **** off,



#117 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2443 posts

Posted 02 January 2019 - 05:40 PM

Also, you don't seem to understand something, essays are not submitted to be ''accepted or rejected'' but are entered as part of a competition. Last year my paper was accepted on curvature in Hilbert space.


Edited by Dubbelosix, 02 January 2019 - 05:41 PM.


#118 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2443 posts

Posted 03 January 2019 - 05:37 AM

Last night I came across a nice paper, which shows the temperature-dependence of the zero point field. Again, it was Plancks law that did this.

 

http://citeseerx.ist...p=rep1&type=pdf