Re: Vacuum energy

[Alan Grayson]

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 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 it's also hard to eliminate other sources of scatter that 
>>> have nothing to do with the UP.  So only experiments deliberately designed 
>>> for maximum precision are going to push the UP bounds for simultaneous 
>>> measurements. 
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> If the experiment is designed for max precision, how large does N have to 
>> be to satisfy the UP? TIA, AG 
>>
>>
>> That doesn't quite make sense.  It takes two to get an estimate of the 
>> variance and the first two you measure may satisfy the UP or they may 
>> violate the NP.  The variance, and the std deviation estimators are random 
>> variables, obey a certain distribution.  The bigger N the tighter the 
>> estimate.  In almost all experiments there will be other sources of 
>> randomness and the estimate will converge around some uncertainty bigger 
>> than h, which is satisfying the UP.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> Why doesn't my question make sense? You say that with an ensemble of 2, 
> the product of the standard deviations might violate the UP. So how large 
> must the ensemble be to guarantee satisfying the UP? AG 
>
>
> There's no such guarantee.  You're not measuring the standard deviations 
> directly, you're measuring estimators of them.  The estimators are random 
> variables.   Suppose I said the average height of a human being is greater 
> than 175cm.  How many people would you have to measure to guarantee that 
> was true?
>
> Brent
>

Suppose I wanted to measure the length of a rod. Couldn't I use high 
frequency photons to measure its endpoints with as much precision as 
desired (short of inducing a black hole), and its length calculated from 
the length differences of its endpoints? Would this procedure violate the 
UP? 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ae628106-3287-4e48-a497-76597c60eb93%40googlegroups.com
>  
> 
> .
>
>
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/922a8ebd-5677-45ec-9c7e-11cfe72a87ff%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Vacuum energy

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

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
estimate.  The error scales as 1/sqrt(N). In most experiments
with photons or electrons, it's easy to make N big.  But it's
also hard to eliminate other sources of scatter that have
nothing to do with the UP.  So only experiments deliberately
designed for maximum precision are going to push the UP
bounds for simultaneous measurements.

Brent


If the experiment is designed for max precision, how large does N
have to be to satisfy the UP? TIA, AG


That doesn't quite make sense.  It takes two to get an estimate of
the variance and the first two you measure may satisfy the UP or
they may violate the NP.  The variance, and the std deviation
estimators are random variables, obey a certain distribution.  The
bigger N the tighter the estimate.  In almost all experiments
there will be other sources of randomness and the estimate will
converge around some uncertainty bigger than h, which is
satisfying the UP.

Brent


Why doesn't my question make sense? You say that with an ensemble of 
2, the product of the standard deviations might violate the UP. So how 
large must the ensemble be to guarantee satisfying the UP? AG


There's no such guarantee.  You're not measuring the standard deviations 
directly, you're measuring estimators of them.  The estimators are 
random variables.   Suppose I said the average height of a human being 
is greater than 175cm.  How many people would you have to measure to 
guarantee that was true?


Brent


--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ae628106-3287-4e48-a497-76597c60eb93%40googlegroups.com 
.


--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8ffd7c9b-d434-4a17-c131-e7a01d3a50cf%40verizon.net.

Re: Vacuum energy

[Alan Grayson]

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 with photons or electrons, it's easy to 
>> make N big.  But it's also hard to eliminate other sources of scatter that 
>> have nothing to do with the UP.  So only experiments deliberately designed 
>> for maximum precision are going to push the UP bounds for simultaneous 
>> measurements. 
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> If the experiment is designed for max precision, how large does N have to 
> be to satisfy the UP? TIA, AG 
>
>
> That doesn't quite make sense.  It takes two to get an estimate of the 
> variance and the first two you measure may satisfy the UP or they may 
> violate the NP.  The variance, and the std deviation estimators are random 
> variables, obey a certain distribution.  The bigger N the tighter the 
> estimate.  In almost all experiments there will be other sources of 
> randomness and the estimate will converge around some uncertainty bigger 
> than h, which is satisfying the UP.
>
> Brent
>

Why doesn't my question make sense? You say that with an ensemble of 2, the 
product of the standard deviations might violate the UP. So how large must 
the ensemble be to guarantee satisfying the UP? 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ae628106-3287-4e48-a497-76597c60eb93%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Vacuum energy

[Alan Grayson]

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 with photons or electrons, it's easy to 
>> make N big.  But it's also hard to eliminate other sources of scatter that 
>> have nothing to do with the UP.  So only experiments deliberately designed 
>> for maximum precision are going to push the UP bounds for simultaneous 
>> measurements. 
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> If the experiment is designed for max precision, how large does N have to 
> be to satisfy the UP? TIA, AG 
>
>
> That doesn't quite make sense.  It takes two to get an estimate of the 
> variance and the first two you measure may satisfy the UP or they may 
> violate the NP.  The variance, and the std deviation estimators are random 
> variables, obey a certain distribution.  The bigger N the tighter the 
> estimate.  In almost all experiments there will be other sources of 
> randomness and the estimate will converge around some uncertainty bigger 
> than h, which is satisfying the UP.
>
> Brent
>

What is NP? If sample size doesn't satisfy the UP, how large must N be? 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/79d61004-9e45-425d-985c-e2e17a57af21%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Vacuum energy

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

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 it's also hard to
eliminate other sources of scatter that have nothing to do with
the UP.  So only experiments deliberately designed for maximum
precision are going to push the UP bounds for simultaneous
measurements.

Brent


If the experiment is designed for max precision, how large does N have 
to be to satisfy the UP? TIA, AG


That doesn't quite make sense.  It takes two to get an estimate of the 
variance and the first two you measure may satisfy the UP or they may 
violate the NP.  The variance, and the std deviation estimators are 
random variables, obey a certain distribution.  The bigger N the tighter 
the estimate.  In almost all experiments there will be other sources of 
randomness and the estimate will converge around some uncertainty bigger 
than h, which is satisfying the UP.


Brent

--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7d4bb358-0eb7-f618-6a11-aa2eb277f333%40verizon.net.

Re: Vacuum energy

[Alan Grayson]

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 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, 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 state the context of your proof, that is, exactly what do 
>>> E 
>>> and t stand for.*
>>
>>
>> The shorter the time (t) a system is under observation the larger the 
>> amount of energy (E) could pop into existence from nothing without 
>> direct 
>> detection, enough energy to create virtual particles. And you can 
>> calculate 
>> how large the indirect effects these virtual particles would have on the 
>> system.
>>
>
> As I understand the UP, it's a statistical statement about an ensemble 
> of observations, say for position and momentum of identical particles. It 
> says nothing about the result of events, say for the position and 
> momentum 
> of a single particle or event. Doing some arithmetic to get the 
> time-energy 
> form of the UP does not change this reality. As a result, your 
> description 
> of what happens to a single particle, virtual or not, is not 
> intelligible. 
> Please try again. AG 
>
>
> The UP doesn't apply to virtual particles because it refers to the 
> result of conjugate measurement (projection) operators.  You can't 
> measure 
> virtual particles.
>
> Brent
>

 In its usual form, does the UP allow us to measure position and 
 momentum *simultaneously*, or must we measure each variable 
 independently (for an ensemble of identical particles, of course)? What is 
 proper interpretation of the time/energy form of the principle in 
 statistical terms? TIA, AG 


 You can measure them simultaneously; but when you repeat the pair of 
 measurements on many identically prepared particles you find that there is 
 a scatter in the position  and a scatter in the momentum such that the HUP 
 is satisfied.

 Brent

>>>
>>> Can you give an example of the ensembles used in applying the 
>>> time-energy form of the UP? TIA, AG
>>>
>>>
>>> https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0511245.pdf
>>>
>>
>> This article seems to establish a lower bound on time, but nothing 
>> related to ensembles. I have no idea about the meaning of the terms in the 
>> time-energy form of the UP. AG
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There's also an interesting discussion of how to measure time in QM.  
>>> Since time is not an operator you have to construct a clock which defines 
>>> the physical meaning of time.  
>>> http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/clock_peres.pdf
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
> Since the "uncertainty" in the UP is a statistical entity with a 
> well-defined definition, aka "the standard deviation", how large must the 
> sample size be, to calculate it? TIA, AG 
>
>
> 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 it's also hard to eliminate other sources of scatter that 
> have nothing to do with the UP.  So only experiments deliberately designed 
> for maximum precision are going to push the UP bounds for simultaneous 
> measurements. 
>
> Brent
>

If the experiment is designed for max precision, how large does N have to 
be to satisfy the UP? 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2e37b187-cb85-48ab-843e-1e8939a3ec63%40googlegroups.com
>  
> 
> .
>
>
>

-- 
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 

Re: Vacuum energy

[Alan Grayson]

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. 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 make better predictions than anybody 
>> else (astronomically better in the case of virtual particles) then 
>> scientists will take your idea very very seriously indeed.
>>
>> *> There's an axiomatic approach to QM*
>>>
>>
>> No there is not, like every other branch of science there is only an 
>> experimental 
>> approach.
>>
>>>
> Haven't you ever taken a course in QM? Since QM "works", we accept the 
> postulates, but you can't have a theory without postulates. Or take GR; one 
> of its postulates is that space-time can be modeled as a smooth 
> pseudo-Riemannian manifold. AG
>  
>
>> > *which does NOT include the UP. This is what's presented in texts on 
>>> QM. Those postulates include, for example, the operators for position and 
>>> momentum, and so forth. The UP is definitely NOT one of these postulates, 
>>> and the UP can be derived from them. It's done in any decent course in QM. 
>>> Do you agree or not? AG*
>>>
>>
>> I neither agree nor disagree because I don't know what the hell you're 
>> talking about. 
>>
>
> Really? QM associates an Hermitian operator with every observable, such as 
> X and P. That's a POSTULATE! You never heard of that!? AG
>  
>
>> All I know is if Virtual Particles or the Uncertainty Principle or even 
>> Quantum Mechanics itself couldn't make predictions that could be confirmed 
>> experimentally no scientist would pay them any attention. And the Virtual 
>> Particle idea can make better predictions than anything else in all of 
>> Science. Full stop.
>>
>
> Of course; we accept the postulates because of excellent experimental 
> predictions, but to deny the existence of postulates is a total 
> non-understanding of QM and physics in general. AG 
>
>>
>> * > your virtual particles are just terms in a perturbation expansion 
>>> which helps in a calculation. This doesn't mean they actually exist in 
>>> violation of energy conservation. *
>>>
>>
>> Hmmm...I wonder if that's why they're called VIRTUAL particles and not 
>> just particles.
>>
>
> They're called virtual because they violate conservation of energy, aka 
> "off shell". but you think they're actually real and can borrow (and 
> return) energy. That's why you can't explain the justification for the 
> time-energy form of the UP. AG 
>
>>
>>  John K Clark
>>
>
There are a host of deep problems you've swept under the rug. E.g., since 
the UP is a statistical statement (which you have yet to acknowledge), how 
do you transform it into a time-energy form for a *single* particle, a 
so-called virtual particle, that pops in and out of existence, and borrows 
and disposes of energy while violating conservation of energy? Since QED 
gives excellent predictions, it must be because the *mathematical *perturbation 
techniques are excellent; not because virtual particles are physical and 
have the properties you assert. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9051ff3d-f2f4-4509-bb8b-c4977fd2d838%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Vacuum energy

[Alan Grayson]

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. So it doesn't matter where you originally 
> got an idea, if the idea allows you to make better predictions than anybody 
> else (astronomically better in the case of virtual particles) then 
> scientists will take your idea very very seriously indeed.
>
> *> There's an axiomatic approach to QM*
>>
>
> No there is not, like every other branch of science there is only an 
> experimental 
> approach.
>
>>
Haven't you ever taken a course in QM? Since QM "works", we accept the 
postulates, but you can't have a theory without postulates. Or take GR; one 
of its postulates is that space-time can be modeled as a smooth 
pseudo-Riemannian manifold. AG
 

> > *which does NOT include the UP. This is what's presented in texts on 
>> QM. Those postulates include, for example, the operators for position and 
>> momentum, and so forth. The UP is definitely NOT one of these postulates, 
>> and the UP can be derived from them. It's done in any decent course in QM. 
>> Do you agree or not? AG*
>>
>
> I neither agree nor disagree because I don't know what the hell you're 
> talking about. 
>

Really? QM associates an Hermitian operator with every observable, such as 
X and P. That's a POSTULATE! You never heard of that!? AG
 

> All I know is if Virtual Particles or the Uncertainty Principle or even 
> Quantum Mechanics itself couldn't make predictions that could be confirmed 
> experimentally no scientist would pay them any attention. And the Virtual 
> Particle idea can make better predictions than anything else in all of 
> Science. Full stop.
>

Of course; we accept the postulates because of excellent experimental 
predictions, but to deny the existence of postulates is a total 
non-understanding of QM and physics in general. AG 

>
> * > your virtual particles are just terms in a perturbation expansion 
>> which helps in a calculation. This doesn't mean they actually exist in 
>> violation of energy conservation. *
>>
>
> Hmmm...I wonder if that's why they're called VIRTUAL particles and not 
> just particles.
>

They're called virtual because they violate conservation of energy, aka 
"off shell". but you think they're actually real and can borrow (and 
return) energy. That's why you can't explain the justification for the 
time-energy form of the UP. AG 

>
>  John K Clark
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c44d2ba0-176a-4cd6-88df-06265e9f04bf%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Vacuum energy

[John Clark]

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 make better predictions than anybody
else (astronomically better in the case of virtual particles) then
scientists will take your idea very very seriously indeed.

*> There's an axiomatic approach to QM*
>

No there is not, like every other branch of science there is only an
experimental
approach.


> > *which does NOT include the UP. This is what's presented in texts on
> QM. Those postulates include, for example, the operators for position and
> momentum, and so forth. The UP is definitely NOT one of these postulates,
> and the UP can be derived from them. It's done in any decent course in QM.
> Do you agree or not? AG*
>

I neither agree nor disagree because I don't know what the hell you're
talking about.  All I know is if Virtual Particles or the Uncertainty
Principle or even Quantum Mechanics itself couldn't make predictions that
could be confirmed experimentally no scientist would pay them any
attention. And the Virtual Particle idea can make better predictions than
anything else in all of Science. Full stop.

* > your virtual particles are just terms in a perturbation expansion which
> helps in a calculation. This doesn't mean they actually exist in violation
> of energy conservation. *
>

Hmmm...I wonder if that's why they're called VIRTUAL particles and not just
particles.

 John K Clark

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0359FZi9Tk4vFSxu8hqwqRCw5z7McFK_JhKWKALPH20A%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Vacuum energy

[Alan Grayson]

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 it Gospel. *
>
>
> I sure as hell *can* pull it out of a hat if it has been EXPERIMENTALLY 
> CONFIRMED TO A HIGHER DEGREE OF PRECISION than any other idea in, not just 
> physics, but in all of Science! And if that offends your Gospel or your 
> delicate physical "postulates" (whatever the hell that's suposed to mean) 
> then it's time for you to find a new Gospel.
>
> > *t**here must have some justification. *
>
>
> There is. It works.
>
>  John K Clark
>

Firstly, concerning the postulates of QM and the UP, you don't understand 
my point, which is on solid ground. There's an axiomatic approach to QM 
which does NOT include the UP. This is what's presented in texts on QM. 
Those postulates include, for example, the operators for position and 
momentum, and so forth. The UP is definitely NOT one of these postulates, 
and the UP can be derived from them. It's done in any decent course in QM. 
Do you agree or not? AG

Secondly, you don't seem to understand the difference between a 
mathematical technique which gives excellent predictions and the 
*interpretation* of variables in some equation. Once you acknowledge that 
the position-momentum form of the UP is a *statistical statement* involving 
*ensembles* (since, without doubt, deltaX and deltaP are the *standard 
deviations* of the X and P, and *defined* explicitly in any text on 
statistics), the question arises of how to interpret deltaT and deltaE in 
the time-energy form of the UP.  Since T is a parameter and not an operator 
in QM (T doesn't operate on any domain and it doesn't have eigenvalues and 
eigenfunctions in its range), it seems that you have a burden to explain 
what deltaT and deltaE means in the context of the time-energy form of the 
UP. I don't think this form is used in the excellent predictions of QED, so 
your comment that QED "works" is without substance in answering my basic 
question. And FWIW, your virtual particles are just terms in a perturbation 
expansion which helps in a calculation. This doesn't mean they actually 
exist in violation of energy conservation.  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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0dbe8890-590f-4603-8818-2dd10c66536c%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Vacuum energy

[John Clark]

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 EXPERIMENTALLY
CONFIRMED TO A HIGHER DEGREE OF PRECISION than any other idea in, not just
physics, but in all of Science! And if that offends your Gospel or your
delicate physical "postulates" (whatever the hell that's suposed to mean)
then it's time for you to find a new Gospel.

> *t**here must have some justification. *


There is. It works.

 John K Clark

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0cARyD44DQm9F_ADKhzA_duvRKZncHGOnrqEPu4x2B0w%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Vacuum energy

[Alan Grayson]

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 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 <
>> everyth...@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 other mathematical 
>>> techniques for calculating the same number. *
>>
>>
>> But they all involve violating the law of conservation of energy for 
>> short amounts of time, and the shorter the time the larger the 
>> violation. 
>>
>> John K Clark
>>
>
> I *might* be convinced, IF you understood the standard UP, involving 
> position and momentum. But you don't. Do you know the definition of 
> "standard deviation", aka "uncertainty"?  Look it up; a well defined 
> concept in statistics; always involving ensembles! AG 
>

 I trust you can see the problem with your interpretation of virtual 
 particles. In effect you're putting the cart before the horse! Once you 
 see 
 that the usual form of the UP is a *statistical* statement involving 
 *standard 
 deviations*, the time-energy form must have the same property. And no 
 one here, apparently, can state what the ensembles are for that form of 
 the 
 UP! If you don't know what ensembles you're talking about, it is 
 egregiously premature, and prone to error, to make an interpretation of 
 the 
 inequality. AG

>>>
>>> Clark; have you confirmed that the standard form of the UP is a 
>>> *statistical* statement implying an *ensemble*, and that the UP can be* 
>>> mathematically proven* from the postulates of QM?  Once we get past 
>>> these elementary FACTS, we can discuss the meaning of the time-energy form 
>>> of the UP. AG
>>>
>>
>> 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. There must have some justification. What is it? AG 
>>
>
>
> Here's Baez's take on the time-energy form of the UP.  
> https://static1.squarespace.com/static/535ddd66e4b0e268e3eae4cf/t/5695883740667a7eb9f5eb8b/1452640311781/Time-Energy_Uncertainty_Relation.pdf
>  .
>
> Clearly T isn't an operator in QM. Rather, it's a parameter. Instead of 
> deltaT, he replaces it with a form I don't understand, at bottom of page 2. 
> AG
>

Correction; bottom of page *3*.  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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/bba04e73-1f37-43b9-9316-ce00bad9cba8%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Vacuum energy

[Alan Grayson]

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 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 reifying the mathematics.  Virtual 
>> particles are just Feynman's invention to keep track of consistent 
>> expansions of the Green's function.  There are other mathematical 
>> techniques for calculating the same number. *
>
>
> But they all involve violating the law of conservation of energy for 
> short amounts of time, and the shorter the time the larger the violation. 
>
> John K Clark
>

 I *might* be convinced, IF you understood the standard UP, involving 
 position and momentum. But you don't. Do you know the definition of 
 "standard deviation", aka "uncertainty"?  Look it up; a well defined 
 concept in statistics; always involving ensembles! AG 

>>>
>>> I trust you can see the problem with your interpretation of virtual 
>>> particles. In effect you're putting the cart before the horse! Once you see 
>>> that the usual form of the UP is a *statistical* statement involving 
>>> *standard 
>>> deviations*, the time-energy form must have the same property. And no 
>>> one here, apparently, can state what the ensembles are for that form of the 
>>> UP! If you don't know what ensembles you're talking about, it is 
>>> egregiously premature, and prone to error, to make an interpretation of the 
>>> inequality. AG
>>>
>>
>> Clark; have you confirmed that the standard form of the UP is a 
>> *statistical* statement implying an *ensemble*, and that the UP can be* 
>> mathematically proven* from the postulates of QM?  Once we get past 
>> these elementary FACTS, we can discuss the meaning of the time-energy form 
>> of the UP. AG
>>
>
> 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. There must have some justification. What is it? AG 
>


Here's Baez's take on the time-energy form of the UP.  
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/535ddd66e4b0e268e3eae4cf/t/5695883740667a7eb9f5eb8b/1452640311781/Time-Energy_Uncertainty_Relation.pdf
 .

Clearly T isn't an operator in QM. Rather, it's a parameter. Instead of 
deltaT, he replaces it with a form I don't understand, at bottom of page 2. 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/67bc45c9-c870-468f-8126-9f50cd337781%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Vacuum energy

[Alan Grayson]

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 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 track of consistent 
> expansions of the Green's function.  There are other mathematical 
> techniques for calculating the same number. *


 But they all involve violating the law of conservation of energy for 
 short amounts of time, and the shorter the time the larger the violation. 

 John K Clark

>>>
>>> I *might* be convinced, IF you understood the standard UP, involving 
>>> position and momentum. But you don't. Do you know the definition of 
>>> "standard deviation", aka "uncertainty"?  Look it up; a well defined 
>>> concept in statistics; always involving ensembles! AG 
>>>
>>
>> I trust you can see the problem with your interpretation of virtual 
>> particles. In effect you're putting the cart before the horse! Once you see 
>> that the usual form of the UP is a *statistical* statement involving 
>> *standard 
>> deviations*, the time-energy form must have the same property. And no 
>> one here, apparently, can state what the ensembles are for that form of the 
>> UP! If you don't know what ensembles you're talking about, it is 
>> egregiously premature, and prone to error, to make an interpretation of the 
>> inequality. AG
>>
>
> Clark; have you confirmed that the standard form of the UP is a 
> *statistical* statement implying an *ensemble*, and that the UP can be* 
> mathematically proven* from the postulates of QM?  Once we get past these 
> elementary FACTS, we can discuss the meaning of the time-energy form of the 
> UP. AG
>

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. There must have some justification. What is it? 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/dac0a3b0-b2fb-4e56-9b82-9e8c018fce40%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Vacuum energy

[Alan Grayson]

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 <
>>> everyth...@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 other mathematical 
 techniques for calculating the same number. *
>>>
>>>
>>> But they all involve violating the law of conservation of energy for 
>>> short amounts of time, and the shorter the time the larger the violation. 
>>>
>>> John K Clark
>>>
>>
>> I *might* be convinced, IF you understood the standard UP, involving 
>> position and momentum. But you don't. Do you know the definition of 
>> "standard deviation", aka "uncertainty"?  Look it up; a well defined 
>> concept in statistics; always involving ensembles! AG 
>>
>
> I trust you can see the problem with your interpretation of virtual 
> particles. In effect you're putting the cart before the horse! Once you see 
> that the usual form of the UP is a *statistical* statement involving 
> *standard 
> deviations*, the time-energy form must have the same property. And no one 
> here, apparently, can state what the ensembles are for that form of the UP! 
> If you don't know what ensembles you're talking about, it is egregiously 
> premature, and prone to error, to make an interpretation of the inequality. 
> AG
>

Clark; have you confirmed that the standard form of the UP is a 
*statistical* statement implying an *ensemble*, and that the UP can be* 
mathematically proven* from the postulates of QM?  Once we get past these 
elementary FACTS, we can discuss the meaning of the time-energy form of the 
UP. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9e817885-5570-414c-bc38-77d9302263c7%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Vacuum energy

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

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 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
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 state the context of
your proof, that is, exactly what do E and
t stand for./


The shorter the time (t) a system is under
observation the larger the amount of energy (E)
could pop into existence from nothing without
direct detection, enough energy to create
virtual particles. And you can calculate how
large the indirect effects these virtual
particles would have on the system.


As I understand the UP, it's a statistical
statement about an ensemble of observations, say
for position and momentum of identical particles.
It says nothing about the result of events, say for
the position and momentum of a single particle or
event. Doing some arithmetic to get the time-energy
form of the UP does not change this reality. As a
result, your description of what happens to a
single particle, virtual or not, is not
intelligible. Please try again. AG


The UP doesn't apply to virtual particles because it
refers to the result of conjugate measurement
(projection) operators.  You can't measure virtual
particles.

Brent


In its usual form, does the UP allow us to measure
position and momentum *simultaneously*, or must we
measure each variable independently (for an ensemble of
identical particles, of course)? What is proper
interpretation of the time/energy form of the principle
in statistical terms? TIA, AG


You can measure them simultaneously; but when you repeat
the pair of measurements on many identically prepared
particles you find that there is a scatter in the
position  and a scatter in the momentum such that the HUP
is satisfied.

Brent


Can you give an example of the ensembles used in applying the
time-energy form of the UP? TIA, AG


https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0511245.pdf



This article seems to establish a lower bound on time, but nothing
related to ensembles. I have no idea about the meaning of the
terms in the time-energy form of the UP. AG



There's also an interesting discussion of how to measure time
in QM.  Since time is not an operator you have to construct a
clock which defines the physical meaning of time.
http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/clock_peres.pdf


Brent


Since the "uncertainty" in the UP is a statistical entity with a 
well-defined definition, aka "the standard deviation", how large must 
the sample size be, to calculate it? TIA, AG


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 it's also hard to eliminate other sources of scatter 
that have nothing to do with the UP.  So only experiments deliberately 
designed for maximum precision are going to push the UP bounds for 
simultaneous measurements.


Brent


--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2e37b187-cb85-48ab-843e-1e8939a3ec63%40googlegroups.com 

Re: Vacuum energy

[Alan Grayson]

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 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  
> 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.*
>
>
> The shorter the time (t) a system is under observation the larger the 
> amount of energy (E) could pop into existence from nothing without direct 
> detection, enough energy to create virtual particles. And you can 
> calculate 
> how large the indirect effects these virtual particles would have on the 
> system.
>

 As I understand the UP, it's a statistical statement about an ensemble 
 of observations, say for position and momentum of identical particles. It 
 says nothing about the result of events, say for the position and momentum 
 of a single particle or event. Doing some arithmetic to get the 
 time-energy 
 form of the UP does not change this reality. As a result, your description 
 of what happens to a single particle, virtual or not, is not intelligible. 
 Please try again. AG 


 The UP doesn't apply to virtual particles because it refers to the 
 result of conjugate measurement (projection) operators.  You can't measure 
 virtual particles.

 Brent

>>>
>>> In its usual form, does the UP allow us to measure position and momentum 
>>> *simultaneously*, or must we measure each variable independently (for 
>>> an ensemble of identical particles, of course)? What is proper 
>>> interpretation of the time/energy form of the principle in statistical 
>>> terms? TIA, AG 
>>>
>>>
>>> You can measure them simultaneously; but when you repeat the pair of 
>>> measurements on many identically prepared particles you find that there is 
>>> a scatter in the position  and a scatter in the momentum such that the HUP 
>>> is satisfied.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> Can you give an example of the ensembles used in applying the time-energy 
>> form of the UP? TIA, AG
>>
>>
>> https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0511245.pdf
>>
>
> This article seems to establish a lower bound on time, but nothing related 
> to ensembles. I have no idea about the meaning of the terms in the 
> time-energy form of the UP. AG
>
>>
>>
>> There's also an interesting discussion of how to measure time in QM.  
>> Since time is not an operator you have to construct a clock which defines 
>> the physical meaning of time.  
>> http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/clock_peres.pdf
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
Since the "uncertainty" in the UP is a statistical entity with a 
well-defined definition, aka "the standard deviation", how large must the 
sample size be, to calculate it? 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2e37b187-cb85-48ab-843e-1e8939a3ec63%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Vacuum energy

[Alan Grayson]

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, 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 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.*


 The shorter the time (t) a system is under observation the larger the 
 amount of energy (E) could pop into existence from nothing without direct 
 detection, enough energy to create virtual particles. And you can 
 calculate 
 how large the indirect effects these virtual particles would have on the 
 system.

>>>
>>> As I understand the UP, it's a statistical statement about an ensemble 
>>> of observations, say for position and momentum of identical particles. It 
>>> says nothing about the result of events, say for the position and momentum 
>>> of a single particle or event. Doing some arithmetic to get the time-energy 
>>> form of the UP does not change this reality. As a result, your description 
>>> of what happens to a single particle, virtual or not, is not intelligible. 
>>> Please try again. AG 
>>>
>>>
>>> The UP doesn't apply to virtual particles because it refers to the 
>>> result of conjugate measurement (projection) operators.  You can't measure 
>>> virtual particles.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> In its usual form, does the UP allow us to measure position and momentum 
>> *simultaneously*, or must we measure each variable independently (for an 
>> ensemble of identical particles, of course)? What is proper interpretation 
>> of the time/energy form of the principle in statistical terms? TIA, AG 
>>
>>
>> You can measure them simultaneously; but when you repeat the pair of 
>> measurements on many identically prepared particles you find that there is 
>> a scatter in the position  and a scatter in the momentum such that the HUP 
>> is satisfied.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> Can you give an example of the ensembles used in applying the time-energy 
> form of the UP? TIA, AG
>
>
> https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0511245.pdf
>

This article seems to establish a lower bound on time, but nothing related 
to ensembles. I have no idea about the meaning of the terms in the 
time-energy form of the UP. AG

>
>
> There's also an interesting discussion of how to measure time in QM.  
> Since time is not an operator you have to construct a clock which defines 
> the physical meaning of time.  
> http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/clock_peres.pdf
>
> Brent
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a2b45bb4-a345-407f-8c4c-213f21891ed5%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Vacuum energy

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

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, 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 state the context of your proof, that is,
exactly what do E and t stand for./


The shorter the time (t) a system is under observation
the larger the amount of energy (E) could pop into
existence from nothing without direct detection, enough
energy to create virtual particles. And you can
calculate how large the indirect effects these virtual
particles would have on the system.


As I understand the UP, it's a statistical statement about
an ensemble of observations, say for position and momentum
of identical particles. It says nothing about the result of
events, say for the position and momentum of a single
particle or event. Doing some arithmetic to get the
time-energy form of the UP does not change this reality. As
a result, your description of what happens to a single
particle, virtual or not, is not intelligible. Please try
again. AG


The UP doesn't apply to virtual particles because it refers
to the result of conjugate measurement (projection)
operators.  You can't measure virtual particles.

Brent


In its usual form, does the UP allow us to measure position and
momentum *simultaneously*, or must we measure each variable
independently (for an ensemble of identical particles, of
course)? What is proper interpretation of the time/energy form of
the principle in statistical terms? TIA, AG


You can measure them simultaneously; but when you repeat the pair
of measurements on many identically prepared particles you find
that there is a scatter in the position  and a scatter in the
momentum such that the HUP is satisfied.

Brent


Can you give an example of the ensembles used in applying the 
time-energy form of the UP? TIA, AG


https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0511245.pdf

There's also an interesting discussion of how to measure time in QM.  
Since time is not an operator you have to construct a clock which 
defines the physical meaning of time. 
http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/clock_peres.pdf


Brent

--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/96ceb2eb-8b4e-3f09-df7f-cd6b1bb06b8d%40verizon.net.

Re: Vacuum energy

[Alan Grayson]

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 reifying the mathematics.  Virtual 
>>> particles are just Feynman's invention to keep track of consistent 
>>> expansions of the Green's function.  There are other mathematical 
>>> techniques for calculating the same number. *
>>
>>
>> But they all involve violating the law of conservation of energy for 
>> short amounts of time, and the shorter the time the larger the violation. 
>>
>> John K Clark
>>
>
> I *might* be convinced, IF you understood the standard UP, involving 
> position and momentum. But you don't. Do you know the definition of 
> "standard deviation", aka "uncertainty"?  Look it up; a well defined 
> concept in statistics; always involving ensembles! AG 
>

I trust you can see the problem with your interpretation of virtual 
particles. In effect you're putting the cart before the horse! Once you see 
that the usual form of the UP is a *statistical* statement involving *standard 
deviations*, the time-energy form must have the same property. And no one 
here, apparently, can state what the ensembles are for that form of the UP! 
If you don't know what ensembles you're talking about, it is egregiously 
premature, and prone to error, to make an interpretation of the inequality. 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9c161855-390d-4055-82da-aca6e3c05f4e%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Vacuum energy

[Alan Grayson]

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 track of consistent expansions of the 
>> Green's function.  There are other mathematical techniques for calculating 
>> the same number. *
>
>
> But they all involve violating the law of conservation of energy for short 
> amounts of time, and the shorter the time the larger the violation. 
>
> John K Clark
>

I *might* be convinced, IF you understood the standard UP, involving 
position and momentum. But you don't. Do you know the definition of 
"standard deviation", aka "uncertainty"?  Look it up; a well defined 
concept in statistics; always involving ensembles! 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e6984276-ba45-4eff-aa3b-ea299b6fc124%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Vacuum energy

[John Clark]

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 other mathematical techniques for calculating
> the same number. *


But they all involve violating the law of conservation of energy for short
amounts of time, and the shorter the time the larger the violation.

John K Clark

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2eWSdarq0HV77FsEduT%2BJt%3D3KO%2BopfxonzaBa6YrqxuQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Vacuum energy

[Alan Grayson]

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 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 state the context of your proof, that is, exactly what do E 
 and t stand for.*
>>>
>>>
>>> The shorter the time (t) a system is under observation the larger the 
>>> amount of energy (E) could pop into existence from nothing without direct 
>>> detection, enough energy to create virtual particles. And you can calculate 
>>> how large the indirect effects these virtual particles would have on the 
>>> system.
>>>
>>
>> As I understand the UP, it's a statistical statement about an ensemble of 
>> observations, say for position and momentum of identical particles. It says 
>> nothing about the result of events, say for the position and momentum of a 
>> single particle or event. Doing some arithmetic to get the time-energy form 
>> of the UP does not change this reality. As a result, your description of 
>> what happens to a single particle, virtual or not, is not intelligible. 
>> Please try again. AG 
>>
>>
>> The UP doesn't apply to virtual particles because it refers to the result 
>> of conjugate measurement (projection) operators.  You can't measure virtual 
>> particles.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> In its usual form, does the UP allow us to measure position and momentum 
> *simultaneously*, or must we measure each variable independently (for an 
> ensemble of identical particles, of course)? What is proper interpretation 
> of the time/energy form of the principle in statistical terms? TIA, AG 
>
>
> You can measure them simultaneously; but when you repeat the pair of 
> measurements on many identically prepared particles you find that there is 
> a scatter in the position  and a scatter in the momentum such that the HUP 
> is satisfied.
>
> Brent
>

Can you give an example of the ensembles used in applying the time-energy 
form of the UP? 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/242de512-d87b-4f1d-a631-e12eca8db6e6%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Vacuum energy

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

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
 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./


The shorter the time (t) a system is under observation the
larger the amount of energy (E) could pop into existence from
nothing without direct detection, enough energy to create
virtual particles. And you can calculate how large the
indirect effects these virtual particles would have on the
system.


As I understand the UP, it's a statistical statement about an
ensemble of observations, say for position and momentum of
identical particles. It says nothing about the result of events,
say for the position and momentum of a single particle or event.
Doing some arithmetic to get the time-energy form of the UP does
not change this reality. As a result, your description of what
happens to a single particle, virtual or not, is not
intelligible. Please try again. AG


The UP doesn't apply to virtual particles because it refers to the
result of conjugate measurement (projection) operators.  You can't
measure virtual particles.

Brent


In its usual form, does the UP allow us to measure position and 
momentum *simultaneously*, or must we measure each variable 
independently (for an ensemble of identical particles, of course)? 
What is proper interpretation of the time/energy form of the principle 
in statistical terms? TIA, AG


You can measure them simultaneously; but when you repeat the pair of 
measurements on many identically prepared particles you find that there 
is a scatter in the position  and a scatter in the momentum such that 
the HUP is satisfied.


Brent

--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d607c66e-654f-e82c-3132-6a63bc0db9d8%40verizon.net.

Re: Vacuum energy

[Philip Thrift]

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 excitations of the underlying fields, but are 'temporary' in 
the sense that they appear in calculations of interactions, but never as 
asymptotic states or indices to the scattering matrix. The accuracy and use of 
virtual particles in calculations is firmly established, but as they cannot be 
detected in experiments, deciding how to precisely describe them is a topic of 
debate."


They are just as 'real' in Ruth Kastner's Transactional QM.

https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/kastner/





Physics = Math + Witchcraft 


@philipthrift 



-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a969e086-0c69-4d0f-8717-dee5b0f8a0d5%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Vacuum energy

[Alan Grayson]

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 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 duration the more energy a particle 
>> (or even empty space) can have without detecting any violation of the law 
>> of conservation of energy. 
>>
>> *> The UP follows from the postulates of QM. So if one assume these 
>>> postulates, there is indeed a proof of the UP.*
>>
>>
>> I repeat, this is physics not mathematics, if an experiment violates 
>> somebody's postulates then that's just too bad for the postulates because 
>> experiment and observation is the ultimate authority in science. And, given 
>> that it can make predictions to 12 significant digits, experiment and 
>> observation tells us that virtual particles exist as unequivocally as 
>> science can tell us anything.
>>
>>
>> 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 other mathematical techniques for calculating 
>> the same number.  So what it means for virtual particles to exist not 
>> really so unequivocal.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> The Green's function is merely *a mathematical expression*. It has no 
> physical status except as a model.
>
> Virtual particles are at least hypothetical physical entities. Green's 
> function don't even have that status.
>
> @philipthrift
>

Since they're names for terms in a perturbation expansion, and don't obey 
the energy relations of SR (aka "off shell"), they have no physical status, 
unless you can prove they can exist in violation of the principle of energy 
conservation. Can you do that? 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/92516fbf-2211-49b8-acb9-2d93a19e706b%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Vacuum energy

[Alan Grayson]

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 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.*
>>
>>
>> The shorter the time (t) a system is under observation the larger the 
>> amount of energy (E) could pop into existence from nothing without direct 
>> detection, enough energy to create virtual particles. And you can calculate 
>> how large the indirect effects these virtual particles would have on the 
>> system.
>>
>
> As I understand the UP, it's a statistical statement about an ensemble of 
> observations, say for position and momentum of identical particles. It says 
> nothing about the result of events, say for the position and momentum of a 
> single particle or event. Doing some arithmetic to get the time-energy form 
> of the UP does not change this reality. As a result, your description of 
> what happens to a single particle, virtual or not, is not intelligible. 
> Please try again. AG 
>
>
> The UP doesn't apply to virtual particles because it refers to the result 
> of conjugate measurement (projection) operators.  You can't measure virtual 
> particles.
>
> Brent
>

In its usual form, does the UP allow us to measure position and momentum 
*simultaneously*, or must we measure each variable independently (for an 
ensemble of identical particles, of course)? What is proper interpretation 
of the time/energy form of the principle in statistical terms? 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5686bd70-6005-4e2c-872a-541ef0b27e20%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Vacuum energy

[Alan Grayson]

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 the velocity of the particle; or stated in a 
> alternativ form, the shorter the time duration the more energy a particle 
> (or even empty space) can have without detecting any violation of the law 
> of conservation of energy.
>

Then you don't understand the meaning of deltaP and deltaX in the statement 
that the product must be > or = to hbar/2.  Trust me; this isn't a 
debatable point. AG 

>
> *> The UP follows from the postulates of QM. So if one assume these 
>> postulates, there is indeed a proof of the UP.*
>
>
> I repeat, this is physics not mathematics, if an experiment violates 
> somebody's postulates then that's just too bad for the postulates because 
> experiment and observation is the ultimate authority in science. 
>

QM is based on specific postulates, and the UP is NOT one of them! Then, 
using those postulates you can actually derive, or prove, the UP. Yes, 
experiment and observation is the ultimate authority for any physical 
theory, and in this case, they validate the postulates as useful in 
predictions. AG
 

> And, given that it can make predictions to 12 significant digits, 
> experiment and observation tells us that virtual particles exist as 
> unequivocally as science can tell us anything.
>

You need to show that the correctness of some prediction establishes the 
existence of virtual particles. Since virtual particles don't obey the 
energy equation of SR, aka "off shell", their existence as physical 
particles is on very shaky ground. You need to go back to the UP, derive 
its energy form, and make sure you really know what that form is telling us 
in a statistical sense. After all, the concept of "uncertainty" has a 
well-defined statistical meaning. AG 

>
>  John K Clark
>
>>
>>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/62eae301-c5f4-464b-b2de-8506e3b7bf99%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Vacuum energy

[Philip Thrift]

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 particle the 
> less exactly you can specify the velocity of the particle; or stated in a 
> alternativ form, the shorter the time duration the more energy a particle 
> (or even empty space) can have without detecting any violation of the law 
> of conservation of energy. 
>
> *> The UP follows from the postulates of QM. So if one assume these 
>> postulates, there is indeed a proof of the UP.*
>
>
> I repeat, this is physics not mathematics, if an experiment violates 
> somebody's postulates then that's just too bad for the postulates because 
> experiment and observation is the ultimate authority in science. And, given 
> that it can make predictions to 12 significant digits, experiment and 
> observation tells us that virtual particles exist as unequivocally as 
> science can tell us anything.
>
>
> 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 other mathematical techniques for calculating 
> the same number.  So what it means for virtual particles to exist not 
> really so unequivocal.
>
> Brent
>

The Green's function is merely *a mathematical expression*. It has no 
physical status except as a model.

Virtual particles are at least hypothetical physical entities. Green's 
function don't even have that status.

@philipthrift

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0aaad9d4-a1d9-4da7-b1cf-ae650215c061%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Vacuum energy

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

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 the velocity of the particle; or 
stated in a alternativ form, the shorter the time duration the more 
energy a particle (or even empty space) can have without detecting any 
violation of the law of conservation of energy.


/> The UP follows from the postulates of QM. So if one assume
these postulates, there is indeed a proof of the UP./


I repeat, this is physics not mathematics, if an experiment violates 
somebody's postulates then that's just too bad for the postulates 
because experiment and observation is the ultimate authority in 
science. And, given that it can make predictions to 12 significant 
digits, experiment and observation tells us that virtual particles 
exist as unequivocally as science can tell us anything.


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 other mathematical techniques for 
calculating the same number.  So what it means for virtual particles to 
exist not really so unequivocal.


Brent

--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/fb2bcf19-2192-7bc6-b84b-f72c5953e8b9%40verizon.net.

Re: Vacuum energy

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

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 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./


The shorter the time (t) a system is under observation the larger
the amount of energy (E) could pop into existence from nothing
without direct detection, enough energy to create virtual
particles. And you can calculate how large the indirect effects
these virtual particles would have on the system.


As I understand the UP, it's a statistical statement about an ensemble 
of observations, say for position and momentum of identical particles. 
It says nothing about the result of events, say for the position and 
momentum of a single particle or event. Doing some arithmetic to get 
the time-energy form of the UP does not change this reality. As a 
result, your description of what happens to a single particle, virtual 
or not, is not intelligible. Please try again. AG


The UP doesn't apply to virtual particles because it refers to the 
result of conjugate measurement (projection) operators.  You can't 
measure virtual particles.


Brent

--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/26f30af6-37cc-43c5-b22b-a2425aeaa6fc%40verizon.net.

Re: Vacuum energy

[John Clark]

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 duration the more energy a particle
(or even empty space) can have without detecting any violation of the law
of conservation of energy.

*> The UP follows from the postulates of QM. So if one assume these
> postulates, there is indeed a proof of the UP.*


I repeat, this is physics not mathematics, if an experiment violates
somebody's postulates then that's just too bad for the postulates because
experiment and observation is the ultimate authority in science. And, given
that it can make predictions to 12 significant digits, experiment and
observation tells us that virtual particles exist as unequivocally as
science can tell us anything.

 John K Clark

>
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1z%2BSQySpEtR5UvfRSZUTds74vP2%3DavrNzdE4CDWhzhvw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Vacuum energy

[Alan Grayson]

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 state the context of your proof, that is, exactly what do E 
>> and t stand for.*
>
>
> The shorter the time (t) a system is under observation the larger the 
> amount of energy (E) could pop into existence from nothing without direct 
> detection, enough energy to create virtual particles. And you can calculate 
> how large the indirect effects these virtual particles would have on the 
> system.
>

As I understand the UP, it's a statistical statement about an ensemble of 
observations, say for position and momentum of identical particles. It says 
nothing about the result of events, say for the position and momentum of a 
single particle or event. Doing some arithmetic to get the time-energy form 
of the UP does not change this reality. As a result, your description of 
what happens to a single particle, virtual or not, is not intelligible. 
Please try again. AG 

>
> > in your proof.
>
>
> This is physics not mathematic so there is no proof. 
>

The UP follows from the postulates of QM. So if one assume these 
postulates, there is indeed a proof of the UP.  AG
 

> However if you take the above as a working assumption and you use it to 
> calculate the magnetic moment of an electron you get a value of 
> 0.001,159,652,181. When you make no assumptions or theoretical calculations 
> at all and just determine the value experimentally you get a value of 
> 0.001,159,652,182. And you just don't get agreement between theory and 
> experiment that is much better than that in science. So I'd say it's a 
> pretty damn good assumption!
>
> John K Clark
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9a3daab1-297e-4319-b653-a76286ddb444%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Vacuum energy

[John Clark]

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.*


The shorter the time (t) a system is under observation the larger the
amount of energy (E) could pop into existence from nothing without direct
detection, enough energy to create virtual particles. And you can calculate
how large the indirect effects these virtual particles would have on the
system.

> in your proof.


This is physics not mathematic so there is no proof. However if you take
the above as a working assumption and you use it to calculate the magnetic
moment of an electron you get a value of 0.001,159,652,181. When you make
no assumptions or theoretical calculations at all and just determine the
value experimentally you get a value of 0.001,159,652,182. And you just
don't get agreement between theory and experiment that is much better than
that in science. So I'd say it's a pretty damn good assumption!

John K Clark

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3nWVGze3Sw7CO2DAV2Th%3DsxY4J6jpYgoC8y1a-3qBiGg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Vacuum energy

[Alan Grayson]

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 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 tells us that the law of conservation of energy can 
>> be violated, if only for a very short amount of time. So 2 particles with 
>> opposite charges can briefly pop into existence, and so can electromagnetic 
>> waves. And we know what Quantum Mechanics is telling us is true because 
>> it has been experimentally verified to very high precision.
>>
>> John K Clark
>>
>
> 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 in your proof. TIA, AG 
>

Also, IMO, QM doesn't tell us that events are uncaused. All it tells us is 
the probability of some event being measured. Big difference! HOWEVER, you 
might want to argue that if a cause of a quantum event can be identified, 
it implies a local hidden variable, which has been shown *not* to exist. Is 
this what you claim to be able to show? 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/cd3de360-8c33-40e9-9f5b-c429202e93a3%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Vacuum energy

[Alan Grayson]

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? *
>
>
> Because Quantum Mechanics tells us that some things can happen for no 
> reason, and because it tells us that the law of conservation of energy can 
> be violated, if only for a very short amount of time. So 2 particles with 
> opposite charges can briefly pop into existence, and so can electromagnetic 
> waves. And we know what Quantum Mechanics is telling us is true because 
> it has been experimentally verified to very high precision.
>
> John K Clark
>

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 in your proof. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c9d15ab0-f910-4a1e-ac56-ada2d2224e67%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Vacuum energy

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, April 24, 2020 at 12:24:38 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, April 23, 2020 at 4:52:11 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 7:56:05 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 6:52:43 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

 On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 7:48:41 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 6:43:22 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 6:09:43 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 3:48:24 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:



 On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 2:39:45 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson 
 wrote:
>
>
>
> 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 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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 <
 agrays...@gmail.com> 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 competent 
 experimental scientists would think of before he even dreamed of 
 performing 
 such a super delicate experiment? 

  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, thus changing the model for how planets 
>>> formed. And 
>>> if you read the excerpt from the Wiki article I posted, MIT 
>>> physicists, in 
>>> 1997 IIRC, were able to explain the Casimir effect without 
>>> appealing to 
>>> vacuum energy. AG
>>>
>>
>> If the two Casimir plates are grounded there will be no 
>> electrostatic potential between them.  Elementary electricity.
>>
>> LC
>>
>
> I'm not sure how the MIT physicist did the experiment. I just know 
> the claim; that he accounted for the forces on the plates without 
> need of 
> appealing to vacuum energy. I'll see if I can find the paper and post 
> it. 
> AG 
>

 Try this, by another physicist:
 Proof that Casimir force does not originate from vacuum energy
 https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.04143  AG

>>>
>>> There has to be something wrong. For one he says the EM Hamiltonian 
>>> commutes with the matter Hamiltonian, and so there is no interaction 
>>> between the EM field and matter. This would be the case if the matter 
>>> possesses no charges. There can be two Hamiltonians that commute with 
>>> each 
>>> other, and it is the case the two sectors are independent. However, 
>>> there 
>>> is the interaction H_i = ∫d^4x j*A that the two operators separately do 
>>> not 
>>> have involution with. This is where the interaction happens. So I have 
>>> suspicions about this claim.
>>>
>>> LC 
>>>
>>
>> Then try this:   The Casimir Effect and the Quantum Vacuum   
>> https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0503158  AG
>>
>
> The above is authored by Robert L. Jaffe, another heavy dude!  
> https://web.mit.edu/physics/people/faculty/jaffe_robert.html   AG
>


 Jaffe is more in line. He is just demonstrating how one gets the 
 Casimir effect even if one removes the vacuum with procedures such as 
 normal ordering.

 LC 

>>>
>>> Which suggests the vacuum energy has nothing to do with the Casimir 
>>> effect (if you get the same result by removing the vacuum!) AG
>>>
>>
>> There is this procedure called normal ordering where raising operators 
>> a^† are pushed to the left and lowering a operators are pushed to the 
>> right. This by hand removes the [a,a^†] commutator responsible for the zero 
>> point energy. The harmonic oscillator Hamiltonian is H = ½(a^†a + aa^†} 
>> and to add and substract ½a^†a gives H = a^†a +½ [a,a^†]. Normal 
>> ordering removes that commutator term, which eliminates the zero point 
>> energy. This is alright because the ZPE does not interact with anything in 
>> this free field theory.
>>
>> The thing is this commutator by itself does not produce the Casimir 
>> effect anyway. It is the term H_i = *℘*∙*A* or in a 

Re: Vacuum energy

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, April 23, 2020 at 4:52:11 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 7:56:05 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 6:52:43 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 7:48:41 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:



 On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 6:43:22 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 6:09:43 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell 
> wrote:
>>
>> On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 3:48:24 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 2:39:45 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:



 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 
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> 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 <
>>> agrays...@gmail.com> 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 competent 
>>> experimental scientists would think of before he even dreamed of 
>>> performing 
>>> such a super delicate experiment? 
>>>
>>>  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, thus changing the model for how planets 
>> formed. And 
>> if you read the excerpt from the Wiki article I posted, MIT 
>> physicists, in 
>> 1997 IIRC, were able to explain the Casimir effect without appealing 
>> to 
>> vacuum energy. AG
>>
>
> If the two Casimir plates are grounded there will be no 
> electrostatic potential between them.  Elementary electricity.
>
> LC
>

 I'm not sure how the MIT physicist did the experiment. I just know 
 the claim; that he accounted for the forces on the plates without need 
 of 
 appealing to vacuum energy. I'll see if I can find the paper and post 
 it. 
 AG 

>>>
>>> Try this, by another physicist:
>>> Proof that Casimir force does not originate from vacuum energy
>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.04143  AG
>>>
>>
>> There has to be something wrong. For one he says the EM Hamiltonian 
>> commutes with the matter Hamiltonian, and so there is no interaction 
>> between the EM field and matter. This would be the case if the matter 
>> possesses no charges. There can be two Hamiltonians that commute with 
>> each 
>> other, and it is the case the two sectors are independent. However, 
>> there 
>> is the interaction H_i = ∫d^4x j*A that the two operators separately do 
>> not 
>> have involution with. This is where the interaction happens. So I have 
>> suspicions about this claim.
>>
>> LC 
>>
>
> Then try this:   The Casimir Effect and the Quantum Vacuum   
> https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0503158  AG
>

 The above is authored by Robert L. Jaffe, another heavy dude!  
 https://web.mit.edu/physics/people/faculty/jaffe_robert.html   AG

>>>
>>>
>>> Jaffe is more in line. He is just demonstrating how one gets the Casimir 
>>> effect even if one removes the vacuum with procedures such as normal 
>>> ordering.
>>>
>>> LC 
>>>
>>
>> Which suggests the vacuum energy has nothing to do with the Casimir 
>> effect (if you get the same result by removing the vacuum!) AG
>>
>
> There is this procedure called normal ordering where raising operators a^† 
> are pushed to the left and lowering a operators are pushed to the right. 
> This by hand removes the [a,a^†] commutator responsible for the zero point 
> energy. The harmonic oscillator Hamiltonian is H = ½(a^†a + aa^†} and to 
> add and substract ½a^†a gives H = a^†a +½ [a,a^†]. Normal ordering 
> removes that commutator term, which eliminates the zero point energy. This 
> is alright because the ZPE does not interact with anything in this free 
> field theory.
>
> The thing is this commutator by itself does not produce the Casimir effect 
> anyway. It is the term H_i = *℘*∙*A* or in a relativistic setting ∫d^4x 
> *j*∙*A* where we can start to see this physics. With the first term the 
> *℘* is the dipole moment of an atom *℘* = *p*(σ_+ + σ_-), which in this 
> reduce theory is two states toggled by the 

Re: Vacuum energy

[John Clark]

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
charge, so they'd repel each other, but the Casimir effect attracts so if
anything electrostatics would tend to cause an experimenter to
underestimate the strength of the casimir effect not produce it.

John K Clark

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0_M73aUc6WQpEGwA1Ef2FFRTFojV3Pn99vmvLJkDhrgA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Vacuum energy

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 7:56:05 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 6:52:43 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 7:48:41 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 6:43:22 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:



 On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 6:09:43 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell 
 wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 3:48:24 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 2:39:45 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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 
 wrote:
>
>
>
> 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 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 even dreamed of 
>> performing 
>> such a super delicate experiment? 
>>
>>  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, thus changing the model for how planets formed. 
> And 
> if you read the excerpt from the Wiki article I posted, MIT 
> physicists, in 
> 1997 IIRC, were able to explain the Casimir effect without appealing 
> to 
> vacuum energy. AG
>

 If the two Casimir plates are grounded there will be no 
 electrostatic potential between them.  Elementary electricity.

 LC

>>>
>>> I'm not sure how the MIT physicist did the experiment. I just know 
>>> the claim; that he accounted for the forces on the plates without need 
>>> of 
>>> appealing to vacuum energy. I'll see if I can find the paper and post 
>>> it. 
>>> AG 
>>>
>>
>> Try this, by another physicist:
>> Proof that Casimir force does not originate from vacuum energy
>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.04143  AG
>>
>
> There has to be something wrong. For one he says the EM Hamiltonian 
> commutes with the matter Hamiltonian, and so there is no interaction 
> between the EM field and matter. This would be the case if the matter 
> possesses no charges. There can be two Hamiltonians that commute with 
> each 
> other, and it is the case the two sectors are independent. However, there 
> is the interaction H_i = ∫d^4x j*A that the two operators separately do 
> not 
> have involution with. This is where the interaction happens. So I have 
> suspicions about this claim.
>
> LC 
>

 Then try this:   The Casimir Effect and the Quantum Vacuum   
 https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0503158  AG

>>>
>>> The above is authored by Robert L. Jaffe, another heavy dude!  
>>> https://web.mit.edu/physics/people/faculty/jaffe_robert.html   AG
>>>
>>
>>
>> Jaffe is more in line. He is just demonstrating how one gets the Casimir 
>> effect even if one removes the vacuum with procedures such as normal 
>> ordering.
>>
>> LC 
>>
>
> Which suggests the vacuum energy has nothing to do with the Casimir effect 
> (if you get the same result by removing the vacuum!) AG
>

There is this procedure called normal ordering where raising operators a^† 
are pushed to the left and lowering a operators are pushed to the right. 
This by hand removes the [a,a^†] commutator responsible for the zero point 
energy. The harmonic oscillator Hamiltonian is H = ½(a^†a + aa^†} and to 
add and substract ½a^†a gives H = a^†a +½ [a,a^†]. Normal ordering removes 
that commutator term, which eliminates the zero point energy. This is 
alright because the ZPE does not interact with anything in this free field 
theory.

The thing is this commutator by itself does not produce the Casimir effect 
anyway. It is the term H_i = *℘*∙*A* or in a relativistic setting ∫d^4x *j*∙
*A* where we can start to see this physics. With the first term the *℘* is 
the dipole moment of an atom *℘* = *p*(σ_+ + σ_-), which in this reduce 
theory is two states toggled by the σ operators, and *A* = *A*_0(a^†e^{kx} 
- ae^{-kx}), Thus if there is a vacuum state, no photons, the interaction 
Hamiltonian has the operator terms from σ_-a^†e^{kx}, the rotating term, 
and σ_+a^†e^{kx} the counter rotating term apply. It is from here that 

Re: Vacuum energy

[Alan Grayson]

On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 6:52:43 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 7:48:41 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 6:43:22 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 6:09:43 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

 On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 3:48:24 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 2:39:45 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> 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 wrote:



 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 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 even dreamed of performing such a 
> super 
> delicate experiment? 
>
>  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, thus changing the model for how planets formed. 
 And 
 if you read the excerpt from the Wiki article I posted, MIT 
 physicists, in 
 1997 IIRC, were able to explain the Casimir effect without appealing 
 to 
 vacuum energy. AG

>>>
>>> If the two Casimir plates are grounded there will be no 
>>> electrostatic potential between them.  Elementary electricity.
>>>
>>> LC
>>>
>>
>> I'm not sure how the MIT physicist did the experiment. I just know 
>> the claim; that he accounted for the forces on the plates without need 
>> of 
>> appealing to vacuum energy. I'll see if I can find the paper and post 
>> it. 
>> AG 
>>
>
> Try this, by another physicist:
> Proof that Casimir force does not originate from vacuum energy
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.04143  AG
>

 There has to be something wrong. For one he says the EM Hamiltonian 
 commutes with the matter Hamiltonian, and so there is no interaction 
 between the EM field and matter. This would be the case if the matter 
 possesses no charges. There can be two Hamiltonians that commute with each 
 other, and it is the case the two sectors are independent. However, there 
 is the interaction H_i = ∫d^4x j*A that the two operators separately do 
 not 
 have involution with. This is where the interaction happens. So I have 
 suspicions about this claim.

 LC 

>>>
>>> Then try this:   The Casimir Effect and the Quantum Vacuum   
>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0503158  AG
>>>
>>
>> The above is authored by Robert L. Jaffe, another heavy dude!  
>> https://web.mit.edu/physics/people/faculty/jaffe_robert.html   AG
>>
>
>
> Jaffe is more in line. He is just demonstrating how one gets the Casimir 
> effect even if one removes the vacuum with procedures such as normal 
> ordering.
>
> LC 
>

Which suggests the vacuum energy has nothing to do with the Casimir effect 
(if you get the same result by removing the vacuum!) 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1e83d600-8413-433b-a0f9-5a3f631d027a%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Vacuum energy

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 7:48:41 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 6:43:22 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 6:09:43 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 3:48:24 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:



 On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 2:39:45 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> 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 wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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 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 even dreamed of performing such a 
 super 
 delicate experiment? 

  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, thus changing the model for how planets formed. 
>>> And 
>>> if you read the excerpt from the Wiki article I posted, MIT physicists, 
>>> in 
>>> 1997 IIRC, were able to explain the Casimir effect without appealing to 
>>> vacuum energy. AG
>>>
>>
>> If the two Casimir plates are grounded there will be no electrostatic 
>> potential between them.  Elementary electricity.
>>
>> LC
>>
>
> I'm not sure how the MIT physicist did the experiment. I just know the 
> claim; that he accounted for the forces on the plates without need of 
> appealing to vacuum energy. I'll see if I can find the paper and post it. 
> AG 
>

 Try this, by another physicist:
 Proof that Casimir force does not originate from vacuum energy
 https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.04143  AG

>>>
>>> There has to be something wrong. For one he says the EM Hamiltonian 
>>> commutes with the matter Hamiltonian, and so there is no interaction 
>>> between the EM field and matter. This would be the case if the matter 
>>> possesses no charges. There can be two Hamiltonians that commute with each 
>>> other, and it is the case the two sectors are independent. However, there 
>>> is the interaction H_i = ∫d^4x j*A that the two operators separately do not 
>>> have involution with. This is where the interaction happens. So I have 
>>> suspicions about this claim.
>>>
>>> LC 
>>>
>>
>> Then try this:   The Casimir Effect and the Quantum Vacuum   
>> https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0503158  AG
>>
>
> The above is authored by Robert L. Jaffe, another heavy dude!  
> https://web.mit.edu/physics/people/faculty/jaffe_robert.html   AG
>


Jaffe is more in line. He is just demonstrating how one gets the Casimir 
effect even if one removes the vacuum with procedures such as normal 
ordering.

LC 

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8fac91d7-f3ac-49c2-b421-bc905838771c%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Vacuum energy

[Alan Grayson]

On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 6:43:22 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 6:09:43 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 3:48:24 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 2:39:45 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:



 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 wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> 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 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 even dreamed of performing such a 
>>> super 
>>> delicate experiment? 
>>>
>>>  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, thus changing the model for how planets formed. 
>> And 
>> if you read the excerpt from the Wiki article I posted, MIT physicists, 
>> in 
>> 1997 IIRC, were able to explain the Casimir effect without appealing to 
>> vacuum energy. AG
>>
>
> If the two Casimir plates are grounded there will be no electrostatic 
> potential between them.  Elementary electricity.
>
> LC
>

 I'm not sure how the MIT physicist did the experiment. I just know the 
 claim; that he accounted for the forces on the plates without need of 
 appealing to vacuum energy. I'll see if I can find the paper and post it. 
 AG 

>>>
>>> Try this, by another physicist:
>>> Proof that Casimir force does not originate from vacuum energy
>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.04143  AG
>>>
>>
>> There has to be something wrong. For one he says the EM Hamiltonian 
>> commutes with the matter Hamiltonian, and so there is no interaction 
>> between the EM field and matter. This would be the case if the matter 
>> possesses no charges. There can be two Hamiltonians that commute with each 
>> other, and it is the case the two sectors are independent. However, there 
>> is the interaction H_i = ∫d^4x j*A that the two operators separately do not 
>> have involution with. This is where the interaction happens. So I have 
>> suspicions about this claim.
>>
>> LC 
>>
>
> Then try this:   The Casimir Effect and the Quantum Vacuum   
> https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0503158  AG
>

The above is authored by Robert L. Jaffe, another heavy dude!  
https://web.mit.edu/physics/people/faculty/jaffe_robert.html   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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a9d4b8fa-8883-43a7-b737-bf35be4c4f6e%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Vacuum energy

[Alan Grayson]

On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 6:09:43 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 3:48:24 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 2:39:45 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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 wrote:
>
>
>
> 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 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 even dreamed of performing such a 
>> super 
>> delicate experiment? 
>>
>>  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, thus changing the model for how planets formed. And 
> if you read the excerpt from the Wiki article I posted, MIT physicists, 
> in 
> 1997 IIRC, were able to explain the Casimir effect without appealing to 
> vacuum energy. AG
>

 If the two Casimir plates are grounded there will be no electrostatic 
 potential between them.  Elementary electricity.

 LC

>>>
>>> I'm not sure how the MIT physicist did the experiment. I just know the 
>>> claim; that he accounted for the forces on the plates without need of 
>>> appealing to vacuum energy. I'll see if I can find the paper and post it. 
>>> AG 
>>>
>>
>> Try this, by another physicist:
>> Proof that Casimir force does not originate from vacuum energy
>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.04143  AG
>>
>
> There has to be something wrong. For one he says the EM Hamiltonian 
> commutes with the matter Hamiltonian, and so there is no interaction 
> between the EM field and matter. This would be the case if the matter 
> possesses no charges. There can be two Hamiltonians that commute with each 
> other, and it is the case the two sectors are independent. However, there 
> is the interaction H_i = ∫d^4x j*A that the two operators separately do not 
> have involution with. This is where the interaction happens. So I have 
> suspicions about this claim.
>
> LC 
>

Then try this:   The Casimir Effect and the Quantum Vacuum   
https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0503158  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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/26730618-6af1-44a5-acf2-79e8bba3230e%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Vacuum energy

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 3:48:24 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 2:39:45 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> 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 wrote:



 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 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 even dreamed of performing such a 
> super 
> delicate experiment? 
>
>  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, thus changing the model for how planets formed. And 
 if you read the excerpt from the Wiki article I posted, MIT physicists, in 
 1997 IIRC, were able to explain the Casimir effect without appealing to 
 vacuum energy. AG

>>>
>>> If the two Casimir plates are grounded there will be no electrostatic 
>>> potential between them.  Elementary electricity.
>>>
>>> LC
>>>
>>
>> I'm not sure how the MIT physicist did the experiment. I just know the 
>> claim; that he accounted for the forces on the plates without need of 
>> appealing to vacuum energy. I'll see if I can find the paper and post it. 
>> AG 
>>
>
> Try this, by another physicist:
> Proof that Casimir force does not originate from vacuum energy
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.04143  AG
>

There has to be something wrong. For one he says the EM Hamiltonian 
commutes with the matter Hamiltonian, and so there is no interaction 
between the EM field and matter. This would be the case if the matter 
possesses no charges. There can be two Hamiltonians that commute with each 
other, and it is the case the two sectors are independent. However, there 
is the interaction H_i = ∫d^4x j*A that the two operators separately do not 
have involution with. This is where the interaction happens. So I have 
suspicions about this claim.

LC 

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f6eea310-eb99-448e-b5ac-9bb3e1419dc8%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Vacuum energy

[Alan Grayson]

On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 2:48:24 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 2:39:45 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> 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 wrote:



 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 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 even dreamed of performing such a 
> super 
> delicate experiment? 
>
>  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, thus changing the model for how planets formed. And 
 if you read the excerpt from the Wiki article I posted, MIT physicists, in 
 1997 IIRC, were able to explain the Casimir effect without appealing to 
 vacuum energy. AG

>>>
>>> If the two Casimir plates are grounded there will be no electrostatic 
>>> potential between them.  Elementary electricity.
>>>
>>> LC
>>>
>>
>> I'm not sure how the MIT physicist did the experiment. I just know the 
>> claim; that he accounted for the forces on the plates without need of 
>> appealing to vacuum energy. I'll see if I can find the paper and post it. 
>> AG 
>>
>
> Try this, by another physicist:
> Proof that Casimir force does not originate from vacuum energy
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.04143  AG
>

Here's his bio; a heavy dude!
https://www.fetzer-franklin-fund.org/media/hrvoje-nikolic/   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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/72a61e86-6269-457b-b428-7d8aeb544400%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Vacuum energy

[Alan Grayson]

On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 2:39:45 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> 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 wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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 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 even dreamed of performing such a 
 super 
 delicate experiment? 

  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, thus changing the model for how planets formed. And if you read the 
>>> excerpt from the Wiki article I posted, MIT physicists, in 1997 IIRC, were 
>>> able to explain the Casimir effect without appealing to vacuum energy. AG
>>>
>>
>> If the two Casimir plates are grounded there will be no electrostatic 
>> potential between them.  Elementary electricity.
>>
>> LC
>>
>
> I'm not sure how the MIT physicist did the experiment. I just know the 
> claim; that he accounted for the forces on the plates without need of 
> appealing to vacuum energy. I'll see if I can find the paper and post it. 
> AG 
>

Try this, by another physicist:
Proof that Casimir force does not originate from vacuum energy
https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.04143  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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1d330fde-4e57-4905-b653-a08deabdd7a6%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Vacuum energy

[Alan Grayson]

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 wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> 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 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 even dreamed of performing such a super delicate 
>>> experiment? 
>>>
>>>  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, thus changing the model for how planets formed. And if you read the 
>> excerpt from the Wiki article I posted, MIT physicists, in 1997 IIRC, were 
>> able to explain the Casimir effect without appealing to vacuum energy. AG
>>
>
> If the two Casimir plates are grounded there will be no electrostatic 
> potential between them.  Elementary electricity.
>
> LC
>

I'm not sure how the MIT physicist did the experiment. I just know the 
claim; that he accounted for the forces on the plates without need of 
appealing to vacuum energy. I'll see if I can find the paper and post it. 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/aa3b5126-19d6-4b6a-901a-a2266feec9bd%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Vacuum energy

[Lawrence Crowell]

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:
>>
>> 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 competent experimental scientists 
>> would think of before he even dreamed of performing such a super delicate 
>> experiment? 
>>
>>  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, thus changing the model for how planets formed. And if you read the 
> excerpt from the Wiki article I posted, MIT physicists, in 1997 IIRC, were 
> able to explain the Casimir effect without appealing to vacuum energy. AG
>

If the two Casimir plates are grounded there will be no electrostatic 
potential between them.  Elementary electricity.

LC

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0e3b1301-81e7-4804-ac1b-5030967cfdc1%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Vacuum energy

[Alan Grayson]

On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 7:21:30 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> 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 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 even dreamed of performing such a super delicate 
>> experiment? 
>>
>>  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, thus changing the model for how planets formed. And if you read the 
> excerpt from the Wiki article I posted, MIT physicists, in 1997 IIRC, were 
> able to explain the Casimir effect without appealing to vacuum energy. AG
>

It was in 2005. If the Casimir effect can be explained without appeal to 
vacuum energy, wouldn't it be a violation of Occam's Razor to invoke its 
existence as the cause? 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9d5b4f77-4cd4-4028-920e-c3cad1061b12%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Vacuum energy

[Alan Grayson]

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 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 even dreamed of performing such a super delicate 
> experiment? 
>
>  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, thus changing the model for how planets formed. And if you read the 
excerpt from the Wiki article I posted, MIT physicists, in 1997 IIRC, were 
able to explain the Casimir effect without appealing to vacuum energy. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/28b4d9db-2c54-4130-b56f-959920237771%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Vacuum energy

[John Clark]

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 competent experimental scientists
would think of before he even dreamed of performing such a super delicate
experiment?

 John K Clark

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2Np4iD-9PvLuOzktPJ33yK9cKMWxxLQnDqADFvRz5PHw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Vacuum energy

[Alan Grayson]

On Tuesday, April 21, 2020 at 6:05:36 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, April 21, 2020 at 3:42:16 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, April 20, 2020 at 5:00:50 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>>
>>> On Monday, April 20, 2020 at 2:30:53 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:



 On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 7:23:00 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 4:50:52 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 2:37:28 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>>
>>> Sure the Casimir effect involves QED. The virtual photons are in a 
>>> sense a set of gauge redundancies that can be removed, though one need 
>>> the 
>>> moduli from these redundancies. This still defines a form of quantum 
>>> topological number. 
>>>
>>> LC
>>>
>>
>> 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 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 need to invoke 
 it, 
 doesn't that put the EM vacuum energy on a dubious basis?  AG

>>>
>>> You are missing the big picture. The pointing to Van der Waal forces is 
>>> just a way of saying this is a boundary effect. However, the VdW force is 
>>> quantized to look at molecules on liquid and material surfaces. The dipole 
>>> for is 1/r^3 in it property, and the dipole-dipole interaction is then 
>>> 1/r^6 and is then fairly weak.
>>>
>>> The issue is with a bundle construction 
>>>
>>> H^1(A) → H^1(A/G) ─d→ H^2(A)
>>>
>>> which is a short exact sequence on the space of connections A. This is a 
>>> form of deRham cohomology. The first map is from the connections to its 
>>> moduli or moduli space. This is then mapped by the differential operator to 
>>> the second cohomology ring over the fields, which in QED would be the 
>>> electric and magnetic fields. The A/G means connections modulo 
>>> diffeomorphisms or gauge changes. 
>>>
>>> Now this middle cohomology ring has another map as H^0(ψ) ─d→ H^1(ψ), 
>>> with the ψ a state, really I should have a state space, that connects to 
>>> the gauge potential as ψ → ψe^{-i∮A∙dx} under a gauge induced phase change, 
>>> such as the Aharanov-Bohm effect. The map in effect removes this phase 
>>> term, just as in the diagram above we have modulo-diffeomorphisms. This is 
>>> a map from a Hilbert space ℋ to a projective Hilbert space ℋ → Pℋ. which 
>>> defines the Fubini-Study metric.
>>>
>>> This can be taken to more general geometries, which in a short post such 
>>> as this I do not have time to go into. These involve entanglements, and 
>>> entanglements are invariant under gauge transformations or unitary 
>>> transformations of states.
>>>
>>> We can remove the whole business of virtual particles, and really 
>>> Feynman diagrams in general. These are nice cartoons that have helped up 
>>> think about things, but in many ways, they are just representations of 
>>> redundancies that are not that necessary. The BCFW method comes close to 
>>> removing some of these redundancies. We can see a part of this with Feynman 
>>> diagrams, for a virtual loop is an entangled pair of particles that just 
>>> happen to “exist” off-shell. We can remove the idea of virtual particles 
>>> and replace this with the topology and geometry of entanglement. This is a 
>>> part of why I think entanglement and gauge symmetries exist in a dualism or 
>>> complementarity. 
>>>
>>> Now let us get back to more brass-tacks physics. If you have two 
>>> parallel plates and the Casimir force pushes them together, the force in a 
>>> displacement FΔx = ΔW, or work. The elementary work-energy theorem of 
>>> mechanics tells us that work is kinetic energy. This then clearly means 
>>> there is a difference in potential energy between the plates relative to 
>>> outside. So we can call this what we want, but clearly there is an energy 
>>> associated with empty space or the vacuu
>>>
>>> LC
>>>
>>
>> As I understand it, the vacuum energy is a residue of various fields 
>> we're familiar with, such as the EM field. But how can the EM field 
>> contribute anything to the vacuum energy in a region of empty space far 
>> away from charged particles? Same for the nuclear and weak forces which are 
>> effective over very short distances. AG'
>>
>
> There is energy in the vacuum for the same reason an EM wave far removed 
> from charges have energy. 
>
> A harmonic oscillator that is not vibrating classically will by the 
> Heisenberg uncertainty principle have an uncertainty in position, think of 
> a mass on a spring or a pendulum, which means by the potential V = ½kx^2 
> where with the Heisenberg 

Re: Vacuum energy

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Tuesday, April 21, 2020 at 3:42:16 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, April 20, 2020 at 5:00:50 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> On Monday, April 20, 2020 at 2:30:53 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 7:23:00 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

 On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 4:50:52 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 2:37:28 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> Sure the Casimir effect involves QED. The virtual photons are in a 
>> sense a set of gauge redundancies that can be removed, though one need 
>> the 
>> moduli from these redundancies. This still defines a form of quantum 
>> topological number. 
>>
>> LC
>>
>
> 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 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 need to invoke it, 
>>> doesn't that put the EM vacuum energy on a dubious basis?  AG
>>>
>>
>> You are missing the big picture. The pointing to Van der Waal forces is 
>> just a way of saying this is a boundary effect. However, the VdW force is 
>> quantized to look at molecules on liquid and material surfaces. The dipole 
>> for is 1/r^3 in it property, and the dipole-dipole interaction is then 
>> 1/r^6 and is then fairly weak.
>>
>> The issue is with a bundle construction 
>>
>> H^1(A) → H^1(A/G) ─d→ H^2(A)
>>
>> which is a short exact sequence on the space of connections A. This is a 
>> form of deRham cohomology. The first map is from the connections to its 
>> moduli or moduli space. This is then mapped by the differential operator to 
>> the second cohomology ring over the fields, which in QED would be the 
>> electric and magnetic fields. The A/G means connections modulo 
>> diffeomorphisms or gauge changes. 
>>
>> Now this middle cohomology ring has another map as H^0(ψ) ─d→ H^1(ψ), 
>> with the ψ a state, really I should have a state space, that connects to 
>> the gauge potential as ψ → ψe^{-i∮A∙dx} under a gauge induced phase change, 
>> such as the Aharanov-Bohm effect. The map in effect removes this phase 
>> term, just as in the diagram above we have modulo-diffeomorphisms. This is 
>> a map from a Hilbert space ℋ to a projective Hilbert space ℋ → Pℋ. which 
>> defines the Fubini-Study metric.
>>
>> This can be taken to more general geometries, which in a short post such 
>> as this I do not have time to go into. These involve entanglements, and 
>> entanglements are invariant under gauge transformations or unitary 
>> transformations of states.
>>
>> We can remove the whole business of virtual particles, and really Feynman 
>> diagrams in general. These are nice cartoons that have helped up think 
>> about things, but in many ways, they are just representations of 
>> redundancies that are not that necessary. The BCFW method comes close to 
>> removing some of these redundancies. We can see a part of this with Feynman 
>> diagrams, for a virtual loop is an entangled pair of particles that just 
>> happen to “exist” off-shell. We can remove the idea of virtual particles 
>> and replace this with the topology and geometry of entanglement. This is a 
>> part of why I think entanglement and gauge symmetries exist in a dualism or 
>> complementarity. 
>>
>> Now let us get back to more brass-tacks physics. If you have two parallel 
>> plates and the Casimir force pushes them together, the force in a 
>> displacement FΔx = ΔW, or work. The elementary work-energy theorem of 
>> mechanics tells us that work is kinetic energy. This then clearly means 
>> there is a difference in potential energy between the plates relative to 
>> outside. So we can call this what we want, but clearly there is an energy 
>> associated with empty space or the vacuu
>>
>> LC
>>
>
> As I understand it, the vacuum energy is a residue of various fields we're 
> familiar with, such as the EM field. But how can the EM field contribute 
> anything to the vacuum energy in a region of empty space far away from 
> charged particles? Same for the nuclear and weak forces which are effective 
> over very short distances. AG'
>

There is energy in the vacuum for the same reason an EM wave far removed 
from charges have energy. 

A harmonic oscillator that is not vibrating classically will by the 
Heisenberg uncertainty principle have an uncertainty in position, think of 
a mass on a spring or a pendulum, which means by the potential V = ½kx^2 
where with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle ΔxΔp ≥ ħ/2 there is an 
energy of uncertainty V(Δx) = ΔV = ½k(Δx)^2. There is a kinetic energy part 
K = p^2/2 and we have a spread in that as well with momentum uncertainty. 
This 

Re: Vacuum energy

[John Clark]

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 tells us that the law of conservation of energy can
be violated, if only for a very short amount of time. So 2 particles with
opposite charges can briefly pop into existence, and so can electromagnetic
waves. And we know what Quantum Mechanics is telling us is true because it
has been experimentally verified to very high precision.

John K Clark

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2M-5S3gW_t7pu4eKz3O-F9Xyf4fhHr6RRv%3DMZPKGkSKQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Vacuum energy

[Alan Grayson]

On Monday, April 20, 2020 at 5:00:50 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Monday, April 20, 2020 at 2:30:53 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 7:23:00 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 4:50:52 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:



 On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 2:37:28 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> Sure the Casimir effect involves QED. The virtual photons are in a 
> sense a set of gauge redundancies that can be removed, though one need 
> the 
> moduli from these redundancies. This still defines a form of quantum 
> topological number. 
>
> LC
>

 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 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 need to invoke it, 
>> doesn't that put the EM vacuum energy on a dubious basis?  AG
>>
>
> You are missing the big picture. The pointing to Van der Waal forces is 
> just a way of saying this is a boundary effect. However, the VdW force is 
> quantized to look at molecules on liquid and material surfaces. The dipole 
> for is 1/r^3 in it property, and the dipole-dipole interaction is then 
> 1/r^6 and is then fairly weak.
>
> The issue is with a bundle construction 
>
> H^1(A) → H^1(A/G) ─d→ H^2(A)
>
> which is a short exact sequence on the space of connections A. This is a 
> form of deRham cohomology. The first map is from the connections to its 
> moduli or moduli space. This is then mapped by the differential operator to 
> the second cohomology ring over the fields, which in QED would be the 
> electric and magnetic fields. The A/G means connections modulo 
> diffeomorphisms or gauge changes. 
>
> Now this middle cohomology ring has another map as H^0(ψ) ─d→ H^1(ψ), with 
> the ψ a state, really I should have a state space, that connects to the 
> gauge potential as ψ → ψe^{-i∮A∙dx} under a gauge induced phase change, 
> such as the Aharanov-Bohm effect. The map in effect removes this phase 
> term, just as in the diagram above we have modulo-diffeomorphisms. This is 
> a map from a Hilbert space ℋ to a projective Hilbert space ℋ → Pℋ. which 
> defines the Fubini-Study metric.
>
> This can be taken to more general geometries, which in a short post such 
> as this I do not have time to go into. These involve entanglements, and 
> entanglements are invariant under gauge transformations or unitary 
> transformations of states.
>
> We can remove the whole business of virtual particles, and really Feynman 
> diagrams in general. These are nice cartoons that have helped up think 
> about things, but in many ways, they are just representations of 
> redundancies that are not that necessary. The BCFW method comes close to 
> removing some of these redundancies. We can see a part of this with Feynman 
> diagrams, for a virtual loop is an entangled pair of particles that just 
> happen to “exist” off-shell. We can remove the idea of virtual particles 
> and replace this with the topology and geometry of entanglement. This is a 
> part of why I think entanglement and gauge symmetries exist in a dualism or 
> complementarity. 
>
> Now let us get back to more brass-tacks physics. If you have two parallel 
> plates and the Casimir force pushes them together, the force in a 
> displacement FΔx = ΔW, or work. The elementary work-energy theorem of 
> mechanics tells us that work is kinetic energy. This then clearly means 
> there is a difference in potential energy between the plates relative to 
> outside. So we can call this what we want, but clearly there is an energy 
> associated with empty space or the vacuu
>
> LC
>

As I understand it, the vacuum energy is a residue of various fields we're 
familiar with, such as the EM field. But how can the EM field contribute 
anything to the vacuum energy in a region of empty space far away from 
charged particles? Same for the nuclear and weak forces which are effective 
over very short distances. AG

>
>
>  
>
>>  
>>>

> On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 11:30:51 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 9:11:46 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell 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.
>>>
>>> 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 

Re: Vacuum energy / Bruce

[Alan Grayson]

On Monday, April 20, 2020 at 5:00:50 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Monday, April 20, 2020 at 2:30:53 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 7:23:00 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 4:50:52 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:



 On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 2:37:28 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> Sure the Casimir effect involves QED. The virtual photons are in a 
> sense a set of gauge redundancies that can be removed, though one need 
> the 
> moduli from these redundancies. This still defines a form of quantum 
> topological number. 
>
> LC
>

 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 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 need to invoke it, 
>> doesn't that put the EM vacuum energy on a dubious basis?  AG
>>
>
> You are missing the big picture. The pointing to Van der Waal forces is 
> just a way of saying this is a boundary effect. However, the VdW force is 
> quantized to look at molecules on liquid and material surfaces. The dipole 
> for is 1/r^3 in it property, and the dipole-dipole interaction is then 
> 1/r^6 and is then fairly weak.
>
> The issue is with a bundle construction 
>
> H^1(A) → H^1(A/G) ─d→ H^2(A)
>
> which is a short exact sequence on the space of connections A. This is a 
> form of deRham cohomology. The first map is from the connections to its 
> moduli or moduli space. This is then mapped by the differential operator to 
> the second cohomology ring over the fields, which in QED would be the 
> electric and magnetic fields. The A/G means connections modulo 
> diffeomorphisms or gauge changes. 
>
> Now this middle cohomology ring has another map as H^0(ψ) ─d→ H^1(ψ), with 
> the ψ a state, really I should have a state space, that connects to the 
> gauge potential as ψ → ψe^{-i∮A∙dx} under a gauge induced phase change, 
> such as the Aharanov-Bohm effect. The map in effect removes this phase 
> term, just as in the diagram above we have modulo-diffeomorphisms. This is 
> a map from a Hilbert space ℋ to a projective Hilbert space ℋ → Pℋ. which 
> defines the Fubini-Study metric.
>
> This can be taken to more general geometries, which in a short post such 
> as this I do not have time to go into. These involve entanglements, and 
> entanglements are invariant under gauge transformations or unitary 
> transformations of states.
>
> We can remove the whole business of virtual particles, and really Feynman 
> diagrams in general. These are nice cartoons that have helped up think 
> about things, but in many ways, they are just representations of 
> redundancies that are not that necessary. The BCFW method comes close to 
> removing some of these redundancies. We can see a part of this with Feynman 
> diagrams, for a virtual loop is an entangled pair of particles that just 
> happen to “exist” off-shell. We can remove the idea of virtual particles 
> and replace this with the topology and geometry of entanglement. This is a 
> part of why I think entanglement and gauge symmetries exist in a dualism or 
> complementarity. 
>
> Now let us get back to more brass-tacks physics. If you have two parallel 
> plates and the Casimir force pushes them together, the force in a 
> displacement FΔx = ΔW, or work. The elementary work-energy theorem of 
> mechanics tells us that work is kinetic energy. This then clearly means 
> there is a difference in potential energy between the plates relative to 
> outside. So we can call this what we want, but clearly there is an energy 
> ,associated with empty space or the vacuum.
>
> LC 
>
 
Bruce; since you still follow this message board, I'd really like to have 
your comment about the above, and specifically, whether IYO, the Casimir 
effect establishes the existence of vacuum energy. TIA, AG 

>
>
>  
>
>>  
>>>

> On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 11:30:51 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 9:11:46 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell 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.
>>>
>>> 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 the very 
>> early universe is on dubious grounds. AG
>> 

Re: Vacuum energy

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Monday, April 20, 2020 at 2:30:53 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 7:23:00 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 4:50:52 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 2:37:28 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

 Sure the Casimir effect involves QED. The virtual photons are in a 
 sense a set of gauge redundancies that can be removed, though one need the 
 moduli from these redundancies. This still defines a form of quantum 
 topological number. 

 LC

>>>
>>> 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 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 need to invoke it, 
> doesn't that put the EM vacuum energy on a dubious basis?  AG
>

You are missing the big picture. The pointing to Van der Waal forces is 
just a way of saying this is a boundary effect. However, the VdW force is 
quantized to look at molecules on liquid and material surfaces. The dipole 
for is 1/r^3 in it property, and the dipole-dipole interaction is then 
1/r^6 and is then fairly weak.

The issue is with a bundle construction 

H^1(A) → H^1(A/G) ─d→ H^2(A)

which is a short exact sequence on the space of connections A. This is a 
form of deRham cohomology. The first map is from the connections to its 
moduli or moduli space. This is then mapped by the differential operator to 
the second cohomology ring over the fields, which in QED would be the 
electric and magnetic fields. The A/G means connections modulo 
diffeomorphisms or gauge changes. 

Now this middle cohomology ring has another map as H^0(ψ) ─d→ H^1(ψ), with 
the ψ a state, really I should have a state space, that connects to the 
gauge potential as ψ → ψe^{-i∮A∙dx} under a gauge induced phase change, 
such as the Aharanov-Bohm effect. The map in effect removes this phase 
term, just as in the diagram above we have modulo-diffeomorphisms. This is 
a map from a Hilbert space ℋ to a projective Hilbert space ℋ → Pℋ. which 
defines the Fubini-Study metric.

This can be taken to more general geometries, which in a short post such as 
this I do not have time to go into. These involve entanglements, and 
entanglements are invariant under gauge transformations or unitary 
transformations of states.

We can remove the whole business of virtual particles, and really Feynman 
diagrams in general. These are nice cartoons that have helped up think 
about things, but in many ways, they are just representations of 
redundancies that are not that necessary. The BCFW method comes close to 
removing some of these redundancies. We can see a part of this with Feynman 
diagrams, for a virtual loop is an entangled pair of particles that just 
happen to “exist” off-shell. We can remove the idea of virtual particles 
and replace this with the topology and geometry of entanglement. This is a 
part of why I think entanglement and gauge symmetries exist in a dualism or 
complementarity. 

Now let us get back to more brass-tacks physics. If you have two parallel 
plates and the Casimir force pushes them together, the force in a 
displacement FΔx = ΔW, or work. The elementary work-energy theorem of 
mechanics tells us that work is kinetic energy. This then clearly means 
there is a difference in potential energy between the plates relative to 
outside. So we can call this what we want, but clearly there is an energy 
associated with empty space or the vacuum.

LC

 

>  
>>
>>>
 On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 11:30:51 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 9:11:46 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell 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.
>>
>> 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 the very 
> early universe is on dubious grounds. AG
>  
> Relativistic van der Waals force[edit 
> 
> ]
>
> Alternatively, a 2005 paper by Robert Jaffe 
>  of MIT states that 
> "Casimir effects can be formulated and Casimir forces can be computed 
> without reference to zero-point energies. They are relativistic, quantum 
> forces between charges and 

Re: Vacuum energy

[Alan Grayson]

On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 7:23:00 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 4:50:52 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 2:37:28 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>>
>>> Sure the Casimir effect involves QED. The virtual photons are in a sense 
>>> a set of gauge redundancies that can be removed, though one need the moduli 
>>> from these redundancies. This still defines a form of quantum topological 
>>> number. 
>>>
>>> LC
>>>
>>
>> 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 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 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:



 On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 9:11:46 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell 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.
>
> 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 the very 
 early universe is on dubious grounds. AG
  
 Relativistic van der Waals force[edit 
 
 ]

 Alternatively, a 2005 paper by Robert Jaffe 
  of MIT states that 
 "Casimir effects can be formulated and Casimir forces can be computed 
 without reference to zero-point energies. They are relativistic, quantum 
 forces between charges and currents. The Casimir force (per unit area) 
 between parallel plates vanishes as alpha, the fine structure constant, 
 goes to zero, and the standard result, which appears to be independent of 
 alpha, corresponds to the alpha approaching infinity limit," and that "The 
 Casimir force is simply the (relativistic, retarded 
 ) van der Waals 
 force between the metal plates."[17] 
  Casimir 
 and Polder's original paper used this method to derive the Casimir-Polder 
 force. In 1978, Schwinger, DeRadd, and Milton published a similar 
 derivation for the Casimir Effect between two parallel plates.[18] 
  In fact, 
 the description in terms of van der Waals forces is the only correct 
 description from the fundamental microscopic perspective,[19] 
 [20] 
  while 
 other descriptions of Casimir force are merely effective macroscopic 
 descriptions.

>
> On Saturday, April 18, 2020 at 10:40:45 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9acce816-33df-468c-8a98-09fa79c2726b%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Vacuum energy

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 4:50:52 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 2:37:28 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> Sure the Casimir effect involves QED. The virtual photons are in a sense 
>> a set of gauge redundancies that can be removed, though one need the moduli 
>> from these redundancies. This still defines a form of quantum topological 
>> number. 
>>
>> LC
>>
>
> 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 well enough be quantized.

LC
 

>
>> On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 11:30:51 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 9:11:46 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell 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.

 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 the very 
>>> early universe is on dubious grounds. AG
>>>  
>>> Relativistic van der Waals force[edit 
>>> 
>>> ]
>>>
>>> Alternatively, a 2005 paper by Robert Jaffe 
>>>  of MIT states that 
>>> "Casimir effects can be formulated and Casimir forces can be computed 
>>> without reference to zero-point energies. They are relativistic, quantum 
>>> forces between charges and currents. The Casimir force (per unit area) 
>>> between parallel plates vanishes as alpha, the fine structure constant, 
>>> goes to zero, and the standard result, which appears to be independent of 
>>> alpha, corresponds to the alpha approaching infinity limit," and that "The 
>>> Casimir force is simply the (relativistic, retarded 
>>> ) van der Waals force 
>>> between the metal plates."[17] 
>>>  Casimir and 
>>> Polder's original paper used this method to derive the Casimir-Polder 
>>> force. In 1978, Schwinger, DeRadd, and Milton published a similar 
>>> derivation for the Casimir Effect between two parallel plates.[18] 
>>>  In fact, 
>>> the description in terms of van der Waals forces is the only correct 
>>> description from the fundamental microscopic perspective,[19] 
>>> [20] 
>>>  while other 
>>> descriptions of Casimir force are merely effective macroscopic descriptions.
>>>

 On Saturday, April 18, 2020 at 10:40:45 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2ea86018-eff3-4d38-85bd-6d7226145975%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Vacuum energy

[Alan Grayson]

On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 2:37:28 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> Sure the Casimir effect involves QED. The virtual photons are in a sense a 
> set of gauge redundancies that can be removed, though one need the moduli 
> from these redundancies. This still defines a form of quantum topological 
> number. 
>
> LC
>

You refer to QED, but aren't wan der Waal forces non quantum? AG 

>
> On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 11:30:51 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 9:11:46 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell 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.
>>>
>>> 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 the very 
>> early universe is on dubious grounds. AG
>>  
>> Relativistic van der Waals force[edit 
>> 
>> ]
>>
>> Alternatively, a 2005 paper by Robert Jaffe 
>>  of MIT states that "Casimir 
>> effects can be formulated and Casimir forces can be computed without 
>> reference to zero-point energies. They are relativistic, quantum forces 
>> between charges and currents. The Casimir force (per unit area) between 
>> parallel plates vanishes as alpha, the fine structure constant, goes to 
>> zero, and the standard result, which appears to be independent of alpha, 
>> corresponds to the alpha approaching infinity limit," and that "The Casimir 
>> force is simply the (relativistic, retarded 
>> ) van der Waals force 
>> between the metal plates."[17] 
>>  Casimir and 
>> Polder's original paper used this method to derive the Casimir-Polder 
>> force. In 1978, Schwinger, DeRadd, and Milton published a similar 
>> derivation for the Casimir Effect between two parallel plates.[18] 
>>  In fact, the 
>> description in terms of van der Waals forces is the only correct 
>> description from the fundamental microscopic perspective,[19] 
>> [20] 
>>  while other 
>> descriptions of Casimir force are merely effective macroscopic descriptions.
>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, April 18, 2020 at 10:40:45 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:

 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b552434b-7743-4724-8831-0b7212042c38%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Vacuum energy

[Lawrence Crowell]

Sure the Casimir effect involves QED. The virtual photons are in a sense a 
set of gauge redundancies that can be removed, though one need the moduli 
from these redundancies. This still defines a form of quantum topological 
number. 

LC

On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 11:30:51 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 9:11:46 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell 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.
>>
>> 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 the very 
> early universe is on dubious grounds. AG
>  
> Relativistic van der Waals force[edit 
> 
> ]
>
> Alternatively, a 2005 paper by Robert Jaffe 
>  of MIT states that "Casimir 
> effects can be formulated and Casimir forces can be computed without 
> reference to zero-point energies. They are relativistic, quantum forces 
> between charges and currents. The Casimir force (per unit area) between 
> parallel plates vanishes as alpha, the fine structure constant, goes to 
> zero, and the standard result, which appears to be independent of alpha, 
> corresponds to the alpha approaching infinity limit," and that "The Casimir 
> force is simply the (relativistic, retarded 
> ) van der Waals force 
> between the metal plates."[17] 
>  Casimir and 
> Polder's original paper used this method to derive the Casimir-Polder 
> force. In 1978, Schwinger, DeRadd, and Milton published a similar 
> derivation for the Casimir Effect between two parallel plates.[18] 
>  In fact, the 
> description in terms of van der Waals forces is the only correct 
> description from the fundamental microscopic perspective,[19] 
> [20] 
>  while other 
> descriptions of Casimir force are merely effective macroscopic descriptions.
>
>>
>> On Saturday, April 18, 2020 at 10:40:45 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f129bbc2-28ff-453b-9597-fc6c43fdc57d%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Vacuum energy

[Alan Grayson]

On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 9:11:46 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell 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.
>
> 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 the very 
early universe is on dubious grounds. AG
 
Relativistic van der Waals force[edit 

]

Alternatively, a 2005 paper by Robert Jaffe 
 of MIT states that "Casimir 
effects can be formulated and Casimir forces can be computed without 
reference to zero-point energies. They are relativistic, quantum forces 
between charges and currents. The Casimir force (per unit area) between 
parallel plates vanishes as alpha, the fine structure constant, goes to 
zero, and the standard result, which appears to be independent of alpha, 
corresponds to the alpha approaching infinity limit," and that "The Casimir 
force is simply the (relativistic, retarded 
) van der Waals force 
between the metal plates."[17] 
 Casimir and 
Polder's original paper used this method to derive the Casimir-Polder 
force. In 1978, Schwinger, DeRadd, and Milton published a similar 
derivation for the Casimir Effect between two parallel plates.[18] 
 In fact, the 
description in terms of van der Waals forces is the only correct 
description from the fundamental microscopic perspective,[19] 
[20] 
 while other 
descriptions of Casimir force are merely effective macroscopic descriptions.

>
> On Saturday, April 18, 2020 at 10:40:45 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7cfd6186-99c1-4be7-8927-793e05436538%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Vacuum energy

[Lawrence Crowell]

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 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/91638017-f388-4d25-8511-be46882b4e08%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Vacuum energy

[Alan Grayson]

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 forgetting about the wrong prediction from theory, what is the 
energy *form *if theory gives 1/2 photon for each frequency? 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e2652c8a-f3eb-486b-aa97-5ed739090233%40googlegroups.com.