Re: Vacuum energy

On Thursday, May 7, 2020 at 7:09:04 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > > On 5/7/2020 4:28 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 12:19:52 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 5/2/2020 10:50 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> You mean to experimentally estimate it from the scatter of

Re: Vacuum energy

On 5/7/2020 4:28 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 12:19:52 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote: On 5/2/2020 10:50 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: You mean to experimentally estimate it from the scatter of results?  That depends on how accurately you want to

Re: Vacuum energy

On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 12:19:52 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > > On 5/2/2020 10:50 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > You mean to experimentally estimate it from the scatter of results? That >> depends on how accurately you want to estimate. The error scales as >> 1/sqrt(N). In most experiments

Re: Vacuum energy

On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 12:19:52 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > > On 5/2/2020 10:50 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > You mean to experimentally estimate it from the scatter of results? That >> depends on how accurately you want to estimate. The error scales as >> 1/sqrt(N). In most experiments

Re: Vacuum energy

On 5/2/2020 10:50 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: You mean to experimentally estimate it from the scatter of results?  That depends on how accurately you want to estimate.  The error scales as 1/sqrt(N).  In most experiments with photons or electrons, it's easy to make N big.  But

Re: Vacuum energy

On Tuesday, April 28, 2020 at 7:38:12 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > > On 4/28/2020 5:59 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 6:47:39 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 4:45:02 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 4/26/2020 6:37

Re: Vacuum energy

On Friday, May 1, 2020 at 6:57:24 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Friday, May 1, 2020 at 6:37:16 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 8:00 AM Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> > *Firstly, concerning the postulates of QM and the UP,* >>> >> >> Mathematics has postulates.

Re: Vacuum energy

On Friday, May 1, 2020 at 6:37:16 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: > > On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 8:00 AM Alan Grayson > wrote: > > > *Firstly, concerning the postulates of QM and the UP,* >> > > Mathematics has postulates. Science doesn't. The nearest equivalent for > Science is experimental results.

Re: Vacuum energy

On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 8:00 AM Alan Grayson wrote: > *Firstly, concerning the postulates of QM and the UP,* > Mathematics has postulates. Science doesn't. The nearest equivalent for Science is experimental results. So it doesn't matter where you originally got an idea, if the idea allows you to

Re: Vacuum energy

On Friday, May 1, 2020 at 5:17:42 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 8:18 PM Alan Grayson > wrote: > > *> What I want to know is your justification for your prior statement >> about virtual particles and borrowing of energy. You can't just pull it out >> of a hat as call

Re: Vacuum energy

On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 8:18 PM Alan Grayson wrote: *> What I want to know is your justification for your prior statement about > virtual particles and borrowing of energy. You can't just pull it out of a > hat as call it Gospel. * I sure as hell *can* pull it out of a hat if it has been

Re: Vacuum energy

On Thursday, April 30, 2020 at 9:51:38 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 6:18:39 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 6:12:21 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 1:30:59 PM UTC-6, Alan

Re: Vacuum energy

On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 6:18:39 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 6:12:21 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 1:30:59 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 5:49:15 AM UTC-6, Alan

Re: Vacuum energy

On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 6:12:21 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 1:30:59 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 5:49:15 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 3:51:03 AM UTC-6, John

Re: Vacuum energy

On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 1:30:59 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 5:49:15 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 3:51:03 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: >>> >>> On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 5:18 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <

Re: Vacuum energy

On 4/28/2020 5:59 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 6:47:39 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 4:45:02 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: On 4/26/2020 6:37 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Sunday, April 26, 2020 at 6:39:15 PM UTC-6, Brent

Re: Vacuum energy

On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 6:47:39 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 4:45:02 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 4/26/2020 6:37 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sunday, April 26, 2020 at 6:39:15 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 4/26/2020 3:22

Re: Vacuum energy

On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 4:45:02 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > > On 4/26/2020 6:37 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Sunday, April 26, 2020 at 6:39:15 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 4/26/2020 3:22 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sunday, April 26, 2020 at 1:46:59 PM UTC-6,

Re: Vacuum energy

On 4/26/2020 6:37 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Sunday, April 26, 2020 at 6:39:15 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: On 4/26/2020 3:22 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Sunday, April 26, 2020 at 1:46:59 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: On 4/26/2020 9:24 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Sunday,

Re: Vacuum energy

On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 5:49:15 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 3:51:03 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 5:18 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < >> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >> *> I think you are to readily

Re: Vacuum energy

On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 3:51:03 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 5:18 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote: > > *> I think you are to readily reifying the mathematics. Virtual particles >> are just Feynman's invention to keep

Re: Vacuum energy

On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 5:18 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: *> I think you are to readily reifying the mathematics. Virtual particles > are just Feynman's invention to keep track of consistent expansions of the > Green's function. There are

Re: Vacuum energy

On Sunday, April 26, 2020 at 6:39:15 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > > On 4/26/2020 3:22 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Sunday, April 26, 2020 at 1:46:59 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 4/26/2020 9:24 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sunday, April 26, 2020 at 9:48:45 AM UTC-6, John

Re: Vacuum energy

On 4/26/2020 3:22 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Sunday, April 26, 2020 at 1:46:59 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: On 4/26/2020 9:24 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Sunday, April 26, 2020 at 9:48:45 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 12:49 PM Alan Grayson

Re: Vacuum energy

Virtual partcle (Wikipedia): "The term is somewhat loose and vaguely defined, in that it refers to the view that the world is made up of 'real particles'. It is not. 'Real particles' are better understood to be excitations of the underlying quantum fields. Virtual particles are also

Re: Vacuum energy

On Sunday, April 26, 2020 at 3:41:49 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Sunday, April 26, 2020 at 4:18:14 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 4/26/2020 12:04 PM, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 12:24 PM Alan Grayson >> wrote: >> >> *> As I understand the UP, it's a

Re: Vacuum energy

On Sunday, April 26, 2020 at 1:46:59 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > > On 4/26/2020 9:24 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Sunday, April 26, 2020 at 9:48:45 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 12:49 PM Alan Grayson >> wrote: >> >> *> How does QM tell us that conservation

Re: Vacuum energy

On Sunday, April 26, 2020 at 1:04:45 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 12:24 PM Alan Grayson > wrote: > > *> As I understand the UP, it's a statistical statement * > > > No. It says the more exactly you specify the position of a particle the > less exactly you can specify

Re: Vacuum energy

On Sunday, April 26, 2020 at 4:18:14 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > > On 4/26/2020 12:04 PM, John Clark wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 12:24 PM Alan Grayson > wrote: > > *> As I understand the UP, it's a statistical statement * > > > No. It says the more exactly you specify the position of a

Re: Vacuum energy

On 4/26/2020 12:04 PM, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 12:24 PM Alan Grayson > wrote: /> As I understand the UP, it's a statistical statement / No. It says the more exactly you specify the position of a particle the less exactly you can specify

Re: Vacuum energy

On 4/26/2020 9:24 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Sunday, April 26, 2020 at 9:48:45 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 12:49 PM Alan Grayson > wrote: /> How does QM tell us that conservation of energy can be violated for brief durations? If you apply the

Re: Vacuum energy

On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 12:24 PM Alan Grayson wrote: *> As I understand the UP, it's a statistical statement * No. It says the more exactly you specify the position of a particle the less exactly you can specify the velocity of the particle; or stated in a alternativ form, the shorter the time

Re: Vacuum energy

On Sunday, April 26, 2020 at 9:48:45 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 12:49 PM Alan Grayson > wrote: > > *> How does QM tell us that conservation of energy can be violated for >> brief durations? If you apply the time-energy form of the UP for your >> proof, please

Re: Vacuum energy

On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 12:49 PM Alan Grayson wrote: *> How does QM tell us that conservation of energy can be violated for > brief durations? If you apply the time-energy form of the UP for your > proof, please state the context of your proof, that is, exactly what do E > and t stand for.*

Re: Vacuum energy

On Saturday, April 25, 2020 at 10:49:13 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, April 21, 2020 at 4:29:02 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 4:42 AM Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> *> how can the EM field contribute anythin

Re: Vacuum energy

On Tuesday, April 21, 2020 at 4:29:02 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 4:42 AM Alan Grayson > wrote: > > *> how can the EM field contribute anything to the vacuum energy in a >> region of empty space far away from charged particles? * > &g

Re: Vacuum energy

ote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 10:19:52 AM UTC-6, Lawrence >>>>>>>>> Crowell wrote: >>>>>>>>&g

Re: Vacuum energy

;>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 8:21:30 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>&g

Re: Vacuum energy

On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 12:19 PM Lawrence Crowell < goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote: > If the two Casimir plates are grounded there will be no electrostatic > potential between them. Elementary electricity. > Yes, and even if the plates were electrically charged they'd have the same

Re: Vacuum energy

t;> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 10:19:52 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 8:21:30 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson >>>>>>>

Re: Vacuum energy

;>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 8:21:30 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 5:22:23 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: >>>>

Re: Vacuum energy

>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 5:22:23 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 1:39 AM Alan Grayson >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>&g

Re: Vacuum energy

April 22, 2020 at 8:21:30 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 5:22:23 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2020

Re: Vacuum energy

dnesday, April 22, 2020 at 5:22:23 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 1:39 AM Alan Grayson >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> > Could it be the case that Casimir plates attract each

Re: Vacuum energy

t;>>>> >>>>> John K Clark >>>>> >>>> >>>> Experiments done on the space shuttle and in Germany (where free fall >>>> is simulated) have shown that dust particles accumulate due to >>>> electrostatic forces,

Re: Vacuum energy

Grayson >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> > Could it be the case that Casimir plates attract each other due to >>>>>> electrostatic forces and not vacuum energy? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Of course not! Do

Re: Vacuum energy

gt;>> On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 5:22:23 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: >>>> >>>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 1:39 AM Alan Grayson >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> > Could it be the case that Casimir plates attract each other due to >>&

Re: Vacuum energy

Apr 22, 2020 at 1:39 AM Alan Grayson >>> wrote: >>> >>> > Could it be the case that Casimir plates attract each other due to >>>> electrostatic forces and not vacuum energy? >>> >>> >>> Of course not! Don't you thing gett

Re: Vacuum energy

ct each other due to >>> electrostatic forces and not vacuum energy? >> >> >> Of course not! Don't you thing getting rid of electrostatic forces would >> be the very first thing any even halfway competent experimental scientists >> would think of before he

Re: Vacuum energy

t Casimir plates attract each other due to >>> electrostatic forces and not vacuum energy? >> >> >> Of course not! Don't you thing getting rid of electrostatic forces would >> be the very first thing any even halfway competent experimental scientists >> would thin

Re: Vacuum energy

On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 5:22:23 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 1:39 AM Alan Grayson > wrote: > > > Could it be the case that Casimir plates attract each other due to >> electrostatic forces and not vacuum energy? > > > Of co

Re: Vacuum energy

On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 1:39 AM Alan Grayson wrote: > Could it be the case that Casimir plates attract each other due to > electrostatic forces and not vacuum energy? Of course not! Don't you thing getting rid of electrostatic forces would be the very first thing any even halfway com

Re: Vacuum energy

t;>>> >>>>>>> LC >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You refer to QED, but aren't wan der Waal forces non quantum? AG >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Van der Waal force is just a dipole-dip

Re: Vacuum energy

;>>>> >>>> >>>> Van der Waal force is just a dipole-dipole interaction, such as what >>>> happens with water on the fluid surface. This can well enough be quantized. >>>> >>>> LC >>>> >>> >>> But

Re: Vacuum energy

On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 4:42 AM Alan Grayson wrote: *> how can the EM field contribute anything to the vacuum energy in a > region of empty space far away from charged particles? * Because Quantum Mechanics tells us that some things can happen for no reason, and because it te

Re: Vacuum energy

t;>>>> >>>> >>>> You refer to QED, but aren't wan der Waal forces non quantum? AG >>>> >>> >>> Van der Waal force is just a dipole-dipole interaction, such as what >>> happens with water on the fluid surface. This can

Re: Vacuum energy / Bruce

t;>>>> >>>> >>>> You refer to QED, but aren't wan der Waal forces non quantum? AG >>>> >>> >>> Van der Waal force is just a dipole-dipole interaction, such as what >>> happens with water on the fluid surface. This can

Re: Vacuum energy

-dipole interaction, such as what >> happens with water on the fluid surface. This can well enough be quantized. >> >> LC >> > > But if you can explain Van der Waal forces without QED, why would you > invoke it? I mean, if it's not necessary, and there's no ne

Re: Vacuum energy

der Waal forces without QED, why would you invoke it? I mean, if it's not necessary, and there's no need to invoke it, doesn't that put the EM vacuum energy on a dubious basis? AG > > >> >>> On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 11:30:51 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: &

Re: Vacuum energy

rowell wrote: >>>> >>>> The only thing that is measured is a difference in energy, and the >>>> modes between two parallel plates are different from those outside. So the >>>> difference in energy results in this slight pressure. >>>> >

Re: Vacuum energy

>> >> From Wiki, below. Apparently there's an interpretation of the Casimir >> effect which doesn't depend on vacuum energy, which, as I recall, is >> Bruce's position on this issue. If no vacuum energy, then the claim that >> photons and other elementar

Re: Vacuum energy

ergy results in this slight pressure. >> >> LC >> > > From Wiki, below. Apparently there's an interpretation of the Casimir > effect which doesn't depend on vacuum energy, which, as I recall, is > Bruce's position on this issue. If no vacuum energy, then the claim th

Re: Vacuum energy

; > LC > >From Wiki, below. Apparently there's an interpretation of the Casimir effect which doesn't depend on vacuum energy, which, as I recall, is Bruce's position on this issue. If no vacuum energy, then the claim that photons and other elementary particles arose from the vacuum in

Re: Vacuum energy

The only thing that is measured is a difference in energy, and the modes between two parallel plates are different from those outside. So the difference in energy results in this slight pressure. LC On Saturday, April 18, 2020 at 10:40:45 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: > > Does the Casimir

Re: Vacuum energy

On Saturday, April 18, 2020 at 9:40:45 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: > > Does the Casimir effect establish that the vacuum has intrinsic energy, > and if so, what is its form? TIA, AG > A related question is this: if the vacuum energy is, in part, from the EM field, and forg

Vacuum energy

Does the Casimir effect establish that the vacuum has intrinsic energy, and if so, what is its form? TIA, AG -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to

The vacuum energy: What is the aether or nothingness of space like?

It seems that the more I study the aether issue, the less I know. Consider this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy Vacuum energy is an underlying background energy that exists in space throughout the entire Universe. [I suppose this is the background energy from the Big Bang][citation