|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Oct 12, 2012 8:40:05 GMT 1
We have all heard of the quantum effect of a vacuum actually seething with newly created energy
I was speaking to a Professor chappie last week and asked him if there is any evidence for this creation of energy. He said yes, there is, both direct and indirect - indirect observation show a sometimes shift in the spectral line of (helium I think it was) from where it should be. Calculations on the shift show that it is exactly equal to the predicted energy level of one of these quantum fluctuations; the direct observation has witnessed the spontaneous creation and disappearence atomic particles in vacuum
My puzzle is this
If new energy is being continually created then over time we would experience a massive build up of energy.
Do we or don't we?
|
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Oct 12, 2012 13:25:26 GMT 1
Probably. And not just through zero-point fluctuations. I think the evidence for Quasars being "white holes" - injections of vast amounts of energy from adjacent universes; that is, the converse of black holes - is very convincing. Not to the mainstream astrophysics community, however - because to accept it would be to be forced to at least reassess the only real evidence for the Big Bang model: the standard interpretation of galactic Red Shifts. Halton Arp has accumulated many examples of quasars that are closely connected to galaxies, some by clearly evident plasma bridges, or filaments. Mainsteam astronomy dismisses these examples as coincidence - and goes so far as to doctor Hubble photographs to dampen down the visibility of such filaments. The reason for this is that the quasars exhibit red shift values that would on the standard Hubble interpretation place them at vast distances (and ages) away from their associated galaxies, and so such plasma bridges could not possibly exist. Even though they're clearly visible in a wide range of em wavelengths. I recommend his fascinating book on the controversy, mentioned here. |
|
|
|
Post by nickrr on Oct 13, 2012 17:40:48 GMT 1
I believe that we don't because the virtual particles that are created only exist for a very short period of time before they disappear. This means that there is a constant background level of energy. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energyIncidentally, this is the subject of one of the worst predictions of physics. As the link describes, the calculated background energy comes out at about 120 orders of magnitude larger than the observed energy! |
|
|
|
Post by nickrr on Oct 13, 2012 17:41:56 GMT 1
Can you give a link to some of this evidence.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Oct 14, 2012 16:42:55 GMT 1
Can you give a link to some of this evidence. I have done, in a general non-scientific sort of way: follow up on Arp's fascinating book if you're interested. It's a mind-boggling history of the whole controversy - and a distressing insight into the lengths to which cosmology, and I suppose "Science" in general, has now become almost fraudulent, at any rate close to sclerotic, in its reaction to anomolous observations that contradict the accepted mainstream consensus. Arp has now catalogued over a dozen Quasars with evident plasma bridges to barred spiral galaxies. One or two might just have been coincidence, but so many, in such near identical configurations, is stretching credulous tolerance for coincidence too far. Admittedly the White Hole theory is not Arp's own preferred explanation. But it is one that Weyl showed derives as a satisfactory solution of the General Relativity equations, which is probably the best corroborated theory in Physics: so they ought to exist, somewhere. (To paraphrase the Marchesa, what God does not forbid is allowed.) Quasars are the obvious candidate, as John Wheeler (I think) first argued. If as Arp's photographic evidence strongly suggests they are a great deal closer than the standard Hubble interpretation of their Red Shifts demands, then another explanation of those very high Red Shifts is required. A distortion of the space-time metric beyond the Schwarzchid radius is the only possible explanation I can imagine - that is, the Red Shift is not a shift in spectral lines, but an elongation of the quanta of space-time, leading to an effective (phenomenal) increase in c. This would account for the fact (disputed though it is; though Arp's calculations have not in the least been overthrown) that such Red Shifts in the spectra of Quasars are quantised - a totally inexplicable phenomenon, otherwise. Such a revolutionary reassessment of Red Shift data throws into question a great deal of other highly dubious cosmological theorising, of course - including the supposed acceleration in universal expansion, the "calculations" leading to the dark matter and dark energy hypotheses, the origin of the CBR, the calculated age of the universe, and indeed the basis of the Big Bang hypothesis itself. |
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Oct 14, 2012 16:47:09 GMT 1
Incidentally, this is the subject of one of the worst predictions of physics. As the link describes, the calculated background energy comes out at about 120 orders of magnitude larger than the observed energy! Quite so. And has it never occurred to any cosmologist that this might make the whole basis for the dark matter hypothesis completely redundant? |
|
|
|
Post by nickrr on Oct 14, 2012 19:41:56 GMT 1
Arp's theories may have been plausible when he formulated them in the 60's but we now have more than enough data to dismiss them. Here's a link to an abstract of a survey demonstrating this. They show that the apparent connection between Arp's quasars and galaxies is what would be expected by chance alignment. adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...633...41TOur understanding that quasars are caused by black holes at the centre of galaxies fits the theory and evidence. |
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Oct 14, 2012 20:18:39 GMT 1
Arp's theories may have been plausible when he formulated them in the 60's but we now have more than enough data to dismiss them. Arp is and never was really a theorist - he's an old-fashioned observationalist. What data are you referring to? Data that has the power to dismiss photographical evidence would be impressive; but I've never seen it. And, incidentally - who is "we"? In an infinite universe, as is now the current consensus, any observations can plausibly be out down to chance alignments, logically. What cannot be dismissed are the em signals being received from the plasma bridges connecting the two. If these were not so inconvenient for the "we" you're aligned to, why would NASA publish photos of such objects deliberately downplaying such signals? I think I've lost count of the times I've had to address this logical sophistry on this board. The fact that an observation fits a theory is not confirmation of the theory. The fact that a theory encompasses an observation is not evidence for the theory. How many times do I have to remind "scientists" of this basic logical point of epistemology? "Your" understanding that quasars are caused by black holes at the centre of galaxies may fit the theory and evidence, if you're going to limit "the evidence" to what fits the theory. It's always the same story. What "you" should be interested in is the "evidence" that does not fit the theory. That's how science progresses. In this specific case, the fact that Quasars are not in the centre of galaxies at all - there's no observational evidence of such galaxies: they're merely inferred, from the theory - the Red Shifts tell "you" that such purported galaxies are unresolvable. What is observed are barred galaxies, inconveniently a great deal closer, supposedly coincidentally "in the way". But the "coincidence" is astronomically improbable. What is required to make such a "coincidence" plausible is a proportionate number of Quasars that are not associated with such spiral galaxies. But there's a much more serious problem with this "theory" of "yours" that the "evidence" supposedly confirms. And that's that according to every other theory in physics that we have any confidence in: it's impossible. Neutron Stars shouldn't exist - the strong nuclear force should blow them apart long before they can form. What's the answer to that? Who knows. Some entirely hypothetical threshold where gravitation and the weak force overcome the strongest yet observed force in the universe: asserted on not a single piece of observational evidence. Why do physicists believe it then? Because of Quasars. Because of a single hypothesis that these mysterious objects must be objects at the vast distances calculated from their Red Shifts - if you want to believe in that, they must be Neutron Stars, even though every theoretical understanding of particles and forces yet developed declares such things simply cannot exist. That's how deep-rooted the standard interpretation of Red Shifts is to standard physics. |
|
