Superfluid universe.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Ken S. Tucker on 18 Jul 2010 06:27 Hi Fred and all. On Jul 16, 10:54 pm, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > I have been studying a recent paper by Volovik, > > http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.0597 > > It is kind of a condensed version of his book "The Universe in a Helium > Droplet" with some updates from what he was thinking since when he wrote > the book. In the book he was solving the cosmological constant problem > by assuming that the zero point energy of bosonic fields were canceled > out by the zero point energy of fermionic fields since bosonic zero > point energy is positive and fermionic zero point energy is negative. > Seems he has dropped that assumption now in this new paper. I am glad > to see that because if we do take the quantum vacuum to be a > relativistic medium of quantized fermion (Dirac) fields then what he > originally was proposing didn't make complete sense. Quantized bosonic > fields would just be "wavicles" (like phonons) of the fermionic medium > so don't think this zero point energy cancelation would really happen. > More on that later. > > I like the aspect he is presenting that topology is primary and symmetry > is secondary. With that it solves the hierarchy problem as the masses > of elementary fermions can be small instead of being closer to the > Planck scale mass. See the "Discussion" section of the paper. > > I am surprised that he hasn't picked up on a very simple aspect of the > quantum vacuum as a fermionic medium. And that is Quantum Vacuum Charge > = + or - sqrt(hbar*c) in CGS units. Or + or - 1 in natural units. Or > perhaps that is what he is referring to with topological charge? So far there is no way of measuring a single charge, charge needs another charge to be measured, so one is left with charge couples. The brief you (Fred) corrected and edited, http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf has a 4D topology in Eq.(2) and a 5D topology in Eq.(4) that are practically the same thing. So I'd suggest that a charge configuration varies the spacetime field, which results in gravitation and electricity. > Anyways, I like the idea that gravity is emergent from this concept. > For me, I see matter as being less than the quantum vacuum and it is > simply the result of matter presenting less pressure compared to the > pressure of the quantum vacuum so that matter bodies simply have less > pressure between them and naturally are attracted to each other. "gravity sux" sure, it even deflects light-rays in toward mass, that's usually attributed to a spacetime field curvature. > Best, > Fred Diether Best to you too Fred. Ken
From: eric gisse on 18 Jul 2010 16:08 Ken S. Tucker wrote: > Hi Fred and all. Time for another rejected post to get sent here instead of the shitheap where it belongs! > > On Jul 16, 10:54 pm, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> I have been studying a recent paper by Volovik, >> >> http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.0597 >> >> It is kind of a condensed version of his book "The Universe in a Helium >> Droplet" with some updates from what he was thinking since when he wrote >> the book. In the book he was solving the cosmological constant problem >> by assuming that the zero point energy of bosonic fields were canceled >> out by the zero point energy of fermionic fields since bosonic zero >> point energy is positive and fermionic zero point energy is negative. >> Seems he has dropped that assumption now in this new paper. I am glad >> to see that because if we do take the quantum vacuum to be a >> relativistic medium of quantized fermion (Dirac) fields then what he >> originally was proposing didn't make complete sense. Quantized bosonic >> fields would just be "wavicles" (like phonons) of the fermionic medium >> so don't think this zero point energy cancelation would really happen. >> More on that later. >> >> I like the aspect he is presenting that topology is primary and symmetry >> is secondary. With that it solves the hierarchy problem as the masses >> of elementary fermions can be small instead of being closer to the >> Planck scale mass. See the "Discussion" section of the paper. >> >> I am surprised that he hasn't picked up on a very simple aspect of the >> quantum vacuum as a fermionic medium. And that is Quantum Vacuum Charge >> = + or - sqrt(hbar*c) in CGS units. Or + or - 1 in natural units. Or >> perhaps that is what he is referring to with topological charge? > > So far there is no way of measuring a single charge, charge needs > another charge to be measured, so one is left with charge couples. Wrong and stupid, Kenny boy! The Milikan experiment measures charge one at a time. How do I know this? I've done it. [snip rest of idiocy, unread]
From: Ken S. Tucker on 18 Jul 2010 18:41 On Jul 18, 3:27 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...(a)vianet.on.ca> wrote: > Hi Fred and all. > > On Jul 16, 10:54 pm, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I have been studying a recent paper by Volovik, > > >http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.0597 > > > It is kind of a condensed version of his book "The Universe in a Helium > > Droplet" with some updates from what he was thinking since when he wrote > > the book. In the book he was solving the cosmological constant problem > > by assuming that the zero point energy of bosonic fields were canceled > > out by the zero point energy of fermionic fields since bosonic zero > > point energy is positive and fermionic zero point energy is negative. > > Seems he has dropped that assumption now in this new paper. I am glad > > to see that because if we do take the quantum vacuum to be a > > relativistic medium of quantized fermion (Dirac) fields then what he > > originally was proposing didn't make complete sense. Quantized bosonic > > fields would just be "wavicles" (like phonons) of the fermionic medium > > so don't think this zero point energy cancelation would really happen. > > More on that later. > > > I like the aspect he is presenting that topology is primary and symmetry > > is secondary. With that it solves the hierarchy problem as the masses > > of elementary fermions can be small instead of being closer to the > > Planck scale mass. See the "Discussion" section of the paper. > > > I am surprised that he hasn't picked up on a very simple aspect of the > > quantum vacuum as a fermionic medium. And that is Quantum Vacuum Charge > > = + or - sqrt(hbar*c) in CGS units. Or + or - 1 in natural units. Or > > perhaps that is what he is referring to with topological charge? > > So far there is no way of measuring a single charge, charge needs > another charge to be measured, so one is left with charge couples. > > The brief you (Fred) corrected and edited,http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf > > has a 4D topology in Eq.(2) and a 5D topology in Eq.(4) that are > practically the same thing. > > So I'd suggest that a charge configuration varies the spacetime > field, which results in gravitation and electricity. > > > Anyways, I like the idea that gravity is emergent from this concept. > > For me, I see matter as being less than the quantum vacuum and it is > > simply the result of matter presenting less pressure compared to the > > pressure of the quantum vacuum so that matter bodies simply have less > > pressure between them and naturally are attracted to each other. > > "gravity sux" sure, it even deflects light-rays in toward mass, > that's usually attributed to a spacetime field curvature. > > > Best, > > Fred Diether > > Best to you too Fred. > Ken For an expert discussion see the SPF group. Ken
From: eric gisse on 18 Jul 2010 18:49 Ken S. Tucker wrote: [...] > For an expert discussion see the SPF group. > Ken It is entirely co-incidental that you are excluded from such a discussion.
From: Ken S. Tucker on 18 Jul 2010 20:09 On Jul 18, 3:41 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...(a)vianet.on.ca> wrote: > On Jul 18, 3:27 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...(a)vianet.on.ca> wrote: > > > > > Hi Fred and all. > > > On Jul 16, 10:54 pm, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > I have been studying a recent paper by Volovik, > > > >http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.0597 > > > > It is kind of a condensed version of his book "The Universe in a Helium > > > Droplet" with some updates from what he was thinking since when he wrote > > > the book. In the book he was solving the cosmological constant problem > > > by assuming that the zero point energy of bosonic fields were canceled > > > out by the zero point energy of fermionic fields since bosonic zero > > > point energy is positive and fermionic zero point energy is negative. > > > Seems he has dropped that assumption now in this new paper. I am glad > > > to see that because if we do take the quantum vacuum to be a > > > relativistic medium of quantized fermion (Dirac) fields then what he > > > originally was proposing didn't make complete sense. Quantized bosonic > > > fields would just be "wavicles" (like phonons) of the fermionic medium > > > so don't think this zero point energy cancelation would really happen. > > > More on that later. > > > > I like the aspect he is presenting that topology is primary and symmetry > > > is secondary. With that it solves the hierarchy problem as the masses > > > of elementary fermions can be small instead of being closer to the > > > Planck scale mass. See the "Discussion" section of the paper. > > > > I am surprised that he hasn't picked up on a very simple aspect of the > > > quantum vacuum as a fermionic medium. And that is Quantum Vacuum Charge > > > = + or - sqrt(hbar*c) in CGS units. Or + or - 1 in natural units. Or > > > perhaps that is what he is referring to with topological charge? > > > So far there is no way of measuring a single charge, charge needs > > another charge to be measured, so one is left with charge couples. > > > The brief you (Fred) corrected and edited,http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf > > > has a 4D topology in Eq.(2) and a 5D topology in Eq.(4) that are > > practically the same thing. > > > So I'd suggest that a charge configuration varies the spacetime > > field, which results in gravitation and electricity. > > > > Anyways, I like the idea that gravity is emergent from this concept. > > > For me, I see matter as being less than the quantum vacuum and it is > > > simply the result of matter presenting less pressure compared to the > > > pressure of the quantum vacuum so that matter bodies simply have less > > > pressure between them and naturally are attracted to each other. > > > "gravity sux" sure, it even deflects light-rays in toward mass, > > that's usually attributed to a spacetime field curvature. > > > > Best, > > > Fred Diether > > > Best to you too Fred. > > Ken > > For an expert discussion see the SPF group. > Ken On Jul 18, 2:35 pm, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...(a)vianet.on.ca> wrote in messagenews:85a5e8f3-8b2b-4a1a-a8db-42faa5107728(a)i28g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... ... Hi Fred. - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - > >> I am surprised that he hasn't picked up on a very simple aspect of > >> the > >> quantum vacuum as a fermionic medium. And that is Quantum Vacuum > >> Charge > >> = + or - sqrt(hbar*c) in CGS units. Or + or - 1 in natural units. > >> Or > >> perhaps that is what he is referring to with topological charge? > > So far there is no way of measuring a single charge, charge needs > > another charge to be measured, so one is left with charge couples. > > The brief you (Fred) corrected and edited, > >http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf > > has a 4D topology in Eq.(2) and a 5D topology in Eq.(4) that are > > practically the same thing. > > So I'd suggest that a charge configuration varies the spacetime > > field, which results in gravitation and electricity. > Well, in a viewpoint with the quantum "vacuum" as a relativistic medium, > it is not spacetime that is varied. It is the configuration of the > medium filling space that is varied. When I use the words "spacetime field", I refer to a survey made using light-rays, (radar), that's the 'theory', and from that survey we're supposed to determine G_uv, and then from that, the configuration T_uv. - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - > >> Anyways, I like the idea that gravity is emergent from this concept. > >> For me, I see matter as being less than the quantum vacuum and it is > >> simply the result of matter presenting less pressure compared to the > >> pressure of the quantum vacuum so that matter bodies simply have less > >> pressure between them and naturally are attracted to each other. > > "gravity sux" sure, it even deflects light-rays in toward mass, > > that's usually attributed to a spacetime field curvature. > Yes, spacetime curvature is the standard mainstream geometric > interpretation. Which could be true if there is no medium filling > space. My proposal is a medium based phenomena. But I am having > trouble putting it into a mathematical form. The picture being that the > quantum vacuum has a certain "pressure" to it as Volovik presents and > the existence of matter bodies result in a lower pressure gradient > surrounding them. For simplification let's take two matter bodies in a > certain volume, how does one figure out what their force of attraction > should be using differential pressure gradients? We know that it must > result in Newton's law F = Gm1m2/r^2. I presume the word "pressure" is the same as that in GR1916, Eq.(58). Are we going to look at that Chapter 19? > I think there are some clues in > what John Baez wrote, > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/node3.html#einstein Yeah, using 'coffee grains' is a good demo. > Best, > Fred Diether Best to you Fred. Ken
|
Next
|
Last
Pages: 1 2 3 Prev: Flow over flow Next: Properties of a preferred frame, an inertial frame in SR and |