Particle Speed Limit...

I agree that there is some thing missing in the answer. One aspect is the usage made of the word "virtual". If the space is not empty than there are particles in which are not virtual but real and with their associated waves.

The second aspect is the probability of collision considered as depending of the speed. What is missing is the reference to "time". I mean the higher the speed the longer the travel per time unit and thus higher the probability to have a "meeting" during a time period. The risk of a collision depends on the distance between particles in space. If it travels faster the risk to meet another particle in a given time is higher.

I may be wrong my knowledge of quanta is only skin deep. I am more accustomed to classical mechanics.

nick-name,

Their use of the word "virtual" is intentional. The theory is that if you have a perfect vacuum in the classical sense (no real particles), the vacuum is still full of virtual particles, which wink in and out of existence. By the same thinking, a vacuum contains a large amount of energy.

This exhausts my knowledge of this subject. If you Google "casimir effect" you can see some of this weird stuff.

Tad

At the moment of collision the particle is real and not virtual. I understand what you mean since particles appear and disappear having a limited life.

Ahh, good point. If they wink in and out of existence, then...

Don't know anything about this stuff, I admit. However, from my extremely limited knowledge, my impression is that virtual particles are more of a probability construct than real particles. That is, they impart force, but do not really exist as real particles at any point in time.

Could be way off here, so educate me.

Tad

Also to consider... the equal and opposite reaction of the "acted upon" particle. I am a novice also when it comes to space velocities, but it would seem logical that the higher the relative velocity (relative to some object to use as a 'zero' velocity reference) the higher the probability of collision, and also the greater the imact on the second particle. To try to build a mathmatical formula to calculate that would seem to be getting quite complex!!!

I think I am following the line of reasoning on this discussion, but I would like to know, how does a "virtual" particle act on a photon? Some force would have to be exerted wouldnt it?

My question about this is in the original question:

"...determines the force of the vacuum it travels through?"

Huh? "Force" of the vacuum? Regardless of the answer, what does the question mean?

Now, the answer seems to imply that the faster one speeds down the highway in a rainstorm, the more likely one is to encounter a raindrop - or a virtual raindrop, anyway. Not, perhaps, intuitively obvious, but hard to imagine going fast enough to squeeze betwixt ALL of the raindrops.

GREAT analogy. Your question about the "force of the vacuum" is valid. What does the question mean?

I think that the question displays that the asker is somewhat knowledgeable about physics, and quantum physics in particular. A vacuum space, surprisingly, has energy and a number of other measurable characteristics, like a dielectric constant. It's also surprising to find out that if you had a "perfect" piston & cylinder, AND if you could set up a perfect vacuum inside the cylinder, you cannot push the piston down past a certain point - The repelling force is known as vacuum-energy, and it's been accepted for a long time.

It's my guess that the asker was aware of this and was wondering at what speed would vacuum energy come into play with the velocity of a particle. Of course, this is just MHO.

Hi Vermin,

"It's also surprising to find out that if you had a "perfect" piston & cylinder, AND if you could set up a perfect vacuum inside the cylinder, you cannot push the piston down past a certain point - The repelling force is known as vacuum-energy, and it's been accepted for a long time."

I'd like to get an idea of how much you can squish the vacuum down with reasonable force. Let's say a cubic litre of vacuum with a 10cm diameter piston. Would 100 pounds of force squish it to 1 tenth of original "volume", or would it be too small to measure?

S

Maybe I misunderstood vermin's statement, so correct me if I'm wrong.

What I understood him to say is that you cannot "PULL" the piston away such that you are attempting to INCREASE the vacuum beyond a certain maximum. I'm not sure where "squish" comes in to play here, since squish implies moving toward an increase in pressure, seems to me anyway.

I agree with vermin's contention that in a perfect, no leak, cyl/piston, one cannot move the piston outward beyond a certain point. Think about it (as vermin alluded to [he said "cannot"]), does anything exist beyond a perfect vacuum? What do you do? Suck out all those little particles that pop in and out of existence?

I'd like to know what happens. I think I know: the top of the piston either explodes or the cylinder collapses. Wallahhh...

But OTOH, suppose the piston and cylinder are indestructible and the driver is unstoppable?

Hi JJ,

I think you are right, but he used the word "push" which set my thinking in that direction, however I think it should work both ways. If the vacuum was really empty, it should move both ways with no opposition. I recall a picture in a book I read (about the Big Bang?) of a piston. I think that the author was saying that when you pull the piston out, you create "False Vacuum" (the kind that is expanding the universe). Does this sound right?

regards,

S

StandardsGuy,

You read me correctly. As contradictory as it sounds, physicists have known for some time that if you push the piston into the cylinder, it will become harder and harder to get the piston any deeper, until it becomes impossible to get the piston any closer to the top of the cylinder. See diagram...

I know this sounds really weird and counter intuitive, but this is what happens! Vacuum is perfect, but piston can't go in all the way - I assume this is because at some point, the creation of virtual particle pairs begin to invoke a force against the top of the piston.

Hi vermin, you noted:

"... if you could set up a perfect vacuum inside the cylinder, you cannot push the piston down past a certain point - The repelling force is known as vacuum-energy, and it's been accepted for a long time."

I think in the case of a piston, it is more the Casimir Force that will stop you. The cosmic vacuum energy may be something totally different. For one, it's energy density is minuscule when compared to the Casimir force.

Jorrie

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

Jorrie,

I may be choosing the wrong words, but I think we're both taling about the same thing. Note the use of the term virtual particles in the article.

Thanks!!!

I call this the "...crowded NYC street syndrome..."; the faster you walk, albeit always trying to avoid H to H contact, the more people you are going to bump into. You can fill a NYC train car in 15 seconds and also in 1 minute to the same capacity. It all boils down to the number of collisions that you're going to observe. I think the time is irrelevent.

By the way; I'm no physicist, I just enjoy participating...!

∑;}ͭ Heh, Heh, Heh...

/:€ this myth is busted!

Been thinking about how particles can collide and not alter the information being carried, and trying to relate that to the actual question; an object in space determines the force of the vacuum? I cannot quote from any references, only my own rational.

I was thinking along the lines of a wave on the surface of the water and how they pass each other with out the final outcome altering it, also brought to mine something I seen many years ago about how a wave passing though some pylons also emerged unaltered, so where does that lead and how does it relate to the question?

This is where I put my own spin on it, so it is not necessary so. We are familiar with the three different states of matter, solid, liquid and a gas, so to stretch it, is space another state of matter,dark matter? and as such has its own properties, made of sub particles that interacts with the other states for example gravity? This an attempt to answer why particles such as photons do not loose there information, as they travel as a wave, not expanding as in the other states but contained, being the property of that state. Like I said it is not necessary so?

So too the question; does an object travelling through space alter the properties of that state? The thing common to the the first three states is temperature, so the temperature of one, can effect another, and temperature can radiate through space, what effect it has on space I don't know. Also common is kinetic energy, that can be passed from one too the other. So if space is another state, then an object with velocity could hypothetically impart energy to it?

Don't know if any of this makes sense but at the moment its the best I can do.

Regards JD.

jdretired,

I'm just hooking this on to your post, because it was the one I was reading at the time. I thought a Feynman diagram might help everyone with the concept of virtual particles...

The diagram shows the creation and destruction of a virtual particle pair. Notice that the vertical axis is space and the horizontal axis is time. Literally, from out of nowhere, virtual particle pairs pop into existence, travel a very VERY short distance, and then are attracted back to each other, were they go out of existence. The time scale we're talking here is roughly 10^-22 seconds.

I am not certain, but I believe that virtual particle creation happens more frequently in space depending on some factor - it's that factor that I really want to find out about. Anyway, everybody please take a look at the Feynman diagram and let me know if it makes sense to you.

Hi Vermin,

Sorry, I don't have any answers, just more questions. What does the question or the answer have to do with "Particle speed limit"? What does colliding with a virtual particle have to do with vacuum force? Is the question referring to "resistive" force on the particle passing through it? What is the limit being referred to?

S

Hi, StandardsGuy!

I believe that vacuum force (also known as vacuum energy) is based on the fact that these virtual particle pairs pop in and out of existence all over the place. If you try to squish a "perfect" vacuum, it's these virtual particles that start pushing back!

Hi again vermin, you wrote:

"I believe that vacuum force (also known as vacuum energy) is based on the fact that these virtual particle pairs pop in and out of existence all over the place."

The problem with this view is that the apparent vacuum energy of the cosmos is a zillionⁿ (I forgot the OOM, hence the ⁿ) times too low for the amount of virtual particles that QM predict. So something does not tie up.

That is, if 'Dark Energy' actually exist! There may be other explanations for the measurements that point to it.

Jorrie

I wonder if this info could help...

http://latticeqcd.blogspot.com/2007/03/quantum-vacuum-loops-and-lattice.html

scientificblogging.com

Lamb shift

anomalous magnetic moment

improvement, perturbation theory

the most accurate theory we have

arXiv, lattice fermions

I just turned on the Jorrie signal and pointed it toward the sky. Let's hope he answers soon!

Hi vermin, I've been vacationing a bit, so I missed this one.

That said, QM is not quite my forte. The only sense I can make out of the answer is that because of the very short time that virtual particles actually exist, the more space the traveling real particle covers (i.e., the faster it goes), the higher the probability that it will encounter a virtual particle. Once it does that, it loses some of it's kinetic energy to the virtual particle, creating a real particle or two in the process. The original particle may still carry on, but at a reduced velocity.

The same thing happens to photons, I believe, but photons usually get totally absorbed in creating a particle-antiparticle pair, so they do not get 'delayed' or slowed down by the event. There is some (unverified) evidence that particularly energetic photons (gamma rays) may get delayed by such interactions, but I'm skeptical.

Jorrie

Thanks, Jorrie!!! Good answer!

vermin-

Hi vermin.

I can come up with a concept to explain virtual mater. But to do so I have to go against what is considered conventional as I know it, another way of saying I don't know what the conventional limits are. And the need to think way outside the box, or idle speculation as referred too by some, and if it is, its not considered to have much value?

In post #10 I referred to different states of matter, and this implies that when heat is added, that different states is a normal progression, solid, fluid, gas and space? Space being some unknown state of matter. And that has implications when considered in reverse.

Heat applied to a body imparts enthalpy, the violent agitation of atom molecules. So taking a block of ice as an example, apply heat until it is super heated steam, the molecules are flying around with increased velocity? Continue to add heat till the molecules themselves break down into oxygen and hydrogen, further increase the velocity to the hydrogen atom, and hypothetically one could speculate at some stage the atom will collapse and take on the properties of space? Not a neutron as this new state has velocity and some other fundamental state of being?

Now for the big one, virtual particles, I like to think of this as an exchange of state as one would experience if one was to spray water into steam, if the steam is hot enough it will turn the water to steam, but if the temperature is lower, the water will change the steam into condensate. So if we have an object travelling through space and it collides with space matter, then if that matter losses some of it state, it may momentarily exhibit the properties of a particle as it divides into positive and negative parts, but after passing one another they revert back to their normal state. As an object may collide with a space partical, depending on the properties of each, the momentary outcome can be random?

This is some of my idle speculations, probably a lot of BS, but have enjoyed it, sorry if I've messed about when you have been looking for a serious answer.

Regards JD.

Now THERE'S something interesting...you said:

"Heat applied to a body imparts enthalpy, the violent agitation of atom molecules. So taking a block of ice as an example, apply heat until it is super heated steam, the molecules are flying around with increased velocity? Continue to add heat till the molecules themselves break down into oxygen and hydrogen, further increase the velocity to the hydrogen atom, and hypothetically one could speculate..."

Substitute the more generic term "energy" for "heat" and proceed. Apply energy to the ice, it becomes liquid water; continue application of energy, it becomes steam; yet more energy, it breaks the hydrogen bonding and becomes elemental hydrogen and oxygen. Further energy breaks the forces holding the atomic stucture of, say, the hydrogen; increase the energy again, the subatomic particles relocate themselves (regardless of whatever else becomes of them) farther apart...hence (after a fashion) either creating space, or at least making use of much more of it.

So the question now is, does this constitute a "creation" of space? Hmmm... The "Big Bang" was supposedly an application of just a whole BUNCH of energy, and from that came space, matter, possibly even time (discussed in a different thread, BTW). Well now see what a little messing around can lead to!?!

No, jdretired! Don't apologize!!! That's what we're here for - to exchange ideas and make new thoughts!!!

I would say that before you jump to the space phase, the hydrogen and oxygen would pass through the plasma state, having their electrons ripped off. And then through the state of nuclear disassociation, where the protons and neutrons would fly apart - then possibly to the space state.

Either way, it's a good idea and worth pondering!

Hi enviroman.

Thanks for the interest and input, after reading the info posted by ronald, a lot of which I did not understand, and looking back on my own post, a number of new concepts sprung to mind. So if some would like to bear with me!

First the statement that at some thresh hold a high velocity object, hydrogen, looses its state of mass, and the positive and negative particles blend into dark matter made up of fundamental sub particles? These particles then fly around in every conceivable direction, thus making up the lattice as described in ronald's post, or in modern terms lengths of string? If in fact the electron and proton have blended, then there is something in common between it and a neutron? This then suggest to me an answer of why a neutron in an unstable element can suddenly be expelled with such force, it having been randomly struck by a dark matter particle? Taking this a step further with regard to neutron stars and considering its surface to be unstable, the interaction between it and dark matter could then see neutron being forcefully thrown out into space, and the halo around the star could then possibly be made up of virtual particles. (Apologies to Mr Hawkings).

Then the next step then is collision and my use of the term random virtual particles. Dark matter being parcels of energy travelling as a contained wave, when two such particles collide they momentary take on the character of each, emerging unaltered with regard to their own state, the analogy is a black and white billiard ball on the table, cushions no pockets. Black ball dark matter, white ball an object, with the black in the centre of the table and the white ball travelling towards it, when they meet the dark matter blends into the object, so you now have a grey object slightly larger? The colour grey and the amount of grey momentary representing a virtual particle. So it can be seen that if the white ball does not meet the black ball head on then the amount of grey will be less, a smaller volume of mixing? Then having the black and white ball frictionless flying around the table, they will randomly collide and the occasion when they meet head on would be rare? So the resultant virtual particle would be random in size and duration.

So if one wanted to study dark matter from a set of random results produced by the same object, then one would have to speculate as to which ones where head on collisions, and assume those readings truly represent the particle being studied.

Hope this not just mudding the water. Regards JD.

This is what they may find at CERN when the BASC (Big Ass Super Collier) comes online in 2008!

Hmmm...a lot there I didn't completely grasp either - a disclaimer - I am NOT a physicist, but theoretical physics has long been a favorite hobby of mine (I like being able to do thought experiments w/o tons of equipment). That said, I'm not totally convinced that "dark" matter and energy, or multiple extra dimensions for that matter, are the answers to the problems the real physicists (if that's not an oxymoron) have encountered. To me, these are straw men put up as a way to continue the mathematics until someone comes along that can knock them down and put up a better one. I hope (wasn't it Rutherford) was wrong about the universe not only being queerer than we know, but queerer than we CAN know. I prefer to believe that we will eventually be able to understand the way things really work, not just how we think they ought to work. And I doubt it matters whose brainpower is focused on this, so long as the thoughts are preserved in a way that adds to the total sum of knowledge. For all we know Abner Ugg figured all of this out in 8,000 BCE, but hadn't a book to write it down in.

I do have a problem of clearly explaining a concept, don't want to labour the above, but maybe the term that dark matter and a neutron have something in common is the problem? My thinking there is as follows, atoms have the following particles, electrons, positrons and neutrons. A neutron is considered to be the union of a electron and positron that has been electrical neutralised? So if you added the mass of the electron + positron then it should equal the weight of the neutron, but that is not the case, a neutron in fact weighs less than the positron, what has happened the missing mass? Is there a point when the electron and positron come close enough that all mass is lost and only a energy bundle left? So if it collides with some other object can it momentarily exhibit the properties of mass, a virtual particle. So when a neutron and a virtual particle (virtual neutron) collide, can the virtual particle impart momentum to it?

Regards JD.

First, atoms are made up of electrons, protons, and neutrons.

If you try to create a neutron by pushing an electron and a proton together, surprisingly, it takes a heck of a lot of energy - this energy is exactly the difference in mass between the proton and neutron (E=mc²).

If a neutron becomes free from the nucleus of an atom, its half-life is approximately 20 minutes, whereupon is decays into a proton, an electron, and an anti-neutrino... Weird, huh!

Yes proton, the spelling didn't look right at the time, but had my mind on other things, any way thats the excuse. Do you agree that when the neutron decays into a proton + electron + anti-neutrino that there combined mass is greater than what the original neutron was.

Yes the whole thing is Weird and interesting.

Regards JD.

Yes, they actually pick up the extra mass from the energy of the decay process - and the anti-neutrino carries off the extra amount of spin.

Another interesting thing about this process is if the proton is + and the electron is -, then why is it so hard to get them to come together?! Why wouldn't the electron simply be attracted by the proton and spiral in?

There has been a revolution in thoughts regarding physics over the past ten years or so. However, the emphasis is on the word "thoughts." Dark-energy, dark-matter, multi-verses, strings, ... None of these ideas have yet to come anywhere even close to what we refer to as a theory.

Relativity is a theory, quantum mechanics is a theory. These can be used, detected, and reproduced in the real world. For now, all that other stuff are merely postulation.

Hi EnviroMan.

I'm no physicist either, but I do like to grapple with the big picture, I can get lost in the detail. Before I read this post I had not considered that space might be another state of matter, just a vacuum with stray particles flying every where. Now it has crossed my mind I've been looking for evidence? And as vermin said above, one would expect an object with increased energy to form a plasma and eventual disintegrate. Could not knock that argument, then I though, plasma, where would one see hot hydrogen plasma? And realise its right on the door step, the sun.

When there is a change of state the medium moves to occupy more space, it expands, so if dark matter was to be created by the sun then it should manifest itself as large bubbles as it expands to occupy more space, sun flares to me look like large bubbles breaking through the sun surface, bursting and throwing the hot hydrogen in all directions, and what are sun spots?

And in reverse, there are galaxies that are large clouds of matter, to use an analogy if one thinks of space or dark matter as a cloud and these galaxies as rain drops, a step beyond virtual matter? And as the dark matter collapses, does the rest of space rush in to occupy the vacant area, exerting a gravitation force? To gel the real matter into stars?

The mind boggles one could go on and on. Regards JD.

Indeed - the mind boggles! And hopefully we CAN go on and on; not just "we" as in you and I, but the racial we, all humankind. Like I said earlier, Abner Ugg may have been as good as Newton + Einstein + Hawking, but who'd know it today?

So somehow we've gotten (no surprises here!) from speed limits for particles to whether space = matter, but we must keep in mind that energy = matter, so then energy = space would also have to be true. And does that not seem more likely the more one thinks about it? If space = energy = matter and time fits into it all somehow (space = time?) then perhaps the universe isn't so very queer after all.

And incidentally, my real world initials are JD as well...

OH, yeah. Well I saw the Universe mincing around in high heels, the other night and...

We still have no evidence as yet that space=mass or space=energy.

We do know that energy=mass and, of course, its corollary time=money.

I humbly agree that space is not just pure energy, when I speculate about a change of state, I am taking about an every increasing volume, E = MC^2 as applied to a fixed volume? so if you have 1 cubic cm of ice that has been raised to the four state, then the volume my be quite immense, and if you then compare the eqiverlent volume of 1 cubic cm, then hypothetically it maybe = g? So if you got the time and money to investigate the universe is yours. Now that is interesting.

Regards JD.

IMHO, I think that space exists whether matter is there or not. In other words, if you have a subatomic particle, it does not displace space, as an object in water would. Space is a temporal substrate on which the drama of the Universe unfolds.

Current thinking (General Relativity) indicates that mass distorts the space and time around it, but it does not necessarly displace it... Meaning that is a planet is 8,000 Km wide, the planet exists in that amount of space (roughly cubed). Space is more like the scafolding on which mass and energy play out their roles. Mind you according to Relativity theory, as things are accelerated, even the scaffold starts changing its dimensions and intervals.

"I think that space exists whether matter is there or not. In other words, if you have a subatomic particle, it does not displace space, as an object in water would."

Well, going back to the BB again, I have to ask: was space "created" as the energy of the BB expanded, or was "space" there all along? If the BB did it, was it only the energy that produced space, or did the ensuing particles do their part in helping it along?

I understand your comment that mass distorts space and time around it, but mass (particles), in creating space are also distorting it so to speak.

Just wondering...

Yes I agree, you have been very tolerant, something told to me quite often.

Respect your opinion and views of others, regards JD.

Yes JD it would be nice to think that some of the problems of the world could eventually be solved. When I think about Abner Ugg, the image of some skeletal remains of a distant relative that has been sitting down in a cave for the last few thousand years with the roof stalagmites protruding down through him comes to mind. Who was he, why was he there?

I have been giving some thought to vermin's latest enlightenment about neutrons decaying, ( a fact I did not know), and the observation, why is it that an electron does not eventually spin in to join up with the proton, not something that I can answer but can make a few observations. So I'm tempted to go on a bit more?

Equilibrium is what springs to mind, there are conditions when the building blocks are in a state of balance, take them out of that environment and things change? So when one thinks about the neutron decaying what has changed and what is happening and why approximately 20 min to do so? When looking at the decay list, Electron, proton and anti-neutrino, there is something missing, the anti-neutrino spins off and you are left with the makings of a hydrogen atom, what is missing is the shell that the electron occupies, and I believe that photons are produced by an electron being pushed out of orbit and then popping back in? So is it the shell that prevents electrons spinning in, is it the shell being built up around the neutron that eventually causes its decay, is it the shell that is ripped of an hydrogen atom in the sun's furnace that produces neutrons leading to the sun eventually collapsing into a neutron star? What is a shell, is it just some orbit of equilibrium? Or some other force?

I have used the term a contained wave a few times, by that, I mean that something like a photon is contained like a bubble of air rising up through water, vibrating as it goes, the water contains the bubble, so what contains a photon, (dark matter?), and when you consider that some photon have been travelling through space for billions of years, are they the same size? Are they faithfully a true representation?

Just a few more ponderings I find interesting. Regards JD.

Well, a "shell" isn't a thing like an egg's overcoat, it's a place - the average orbital distance of a given electron from the atomic nucleus, and different shells represent different energy levels the electrons occupy. Inputs of energy via photons or gamma radiation can kick an electron into a higher energy orbit, provided it is unoccupied, or if the energy is sufficient to boost the electron in that higher state out of it. Conversely, if thjere is a lower energy state orbit available, the electron gives up energy (photons, gammas) and drops into that lower state orbital. The number of shells possible is governed by the number of protons in the nucleus, since stability requires a balancing number of electrons (charge balance, +/-). Remove an electron (or add an extra) and you get an ion (+ or -), a charged particle. It's easier to visualize if you think of the shells as hills and valleys - a ball requires energy input to top a hill, but gives it up when rolling into a valley.

And photons are both "packets" of energy and waveforms, so it's kind of wrong to describe them as being contained like bubbles in liquid. they don't need containing, since they can travel freely in a vacuum, or even media they don't readily interact with (clear glass, water, etc.) but upon encountering mass they do interact with (steel, blocks of wood, etc.), they impart energy to that mass, warming it infinitesimally, and cease to exist as photons.

Then it gets weird - neutrinos, for instance, can apparently travel through mass (matter) as readily as electrons through a vacuum. I've been told by those who are supposed to know that they could pass through a sheet of lead (Pb) light years thick! And yet we have ways to (at least occasionally) detect them...

the electron gives up energy (photons, gammas)

The rules for the number of electrons occupying a shell I believe is (shells)x8^2, it is then full, and a new shell is created when any existing shell it is occupied by more than 8 electrons, with the number of electrons occupying the two outer shells in varying in numbers according to its place on the period table. And it is my understanding that photons are the result of an electron changing orbit as you say. What I had not considered was that an electron and a photon/s co-exist like a proton and neutron, being necessary to build up the atoms nucleus, therefore an electron and a photon/s being necessary to build a shell? So when an electron changes orbit it gives up the photon, or energy, interesting.

Regards JD.

I'm not sure the analogy of electrons and photons being like protons and neutrons is completely valid. The electron has to get a boost of energy (say by absorbing a photon) to kick it into a higher orbit (more energetic state), and if it drops into a lower orbit (less energetic), then it give off the extra energy (usually as a photon). Although some reactions are apparently more energetic, thus requiring/giving off more energy, such as gamma ray emissions.

This is where the electromagnetic spectrum plays into the hand - electron energy is a part of it, along with x-rays, visible light, heat, etc. Light frequency determines the color, correct? And if our eyes could detect higher frequencies, we could see microwave emissions, for example.

"Well, a "shell" isn't a thing like an egg's overcoat, it's a place."

From what I understand it's not a "specific" place it's more like a "somewhat" vicinity in a cloud surrounding a (possibly vague) central location. I realize you said it's an average orbital distance, etc...

You said "different shells represent different energy levels the electrons occupy."

That being the case, I must interject a HO, in that at what point in the energy level (cloud) do we decide to kick ol' lectron out? I know you're pbobably talking about all the drib-drab that was taught to us in Chem 101/102, and so on, but when you come down to it we're still grabbing at a lot of straws, aren;t we?

Just some humble thoughts. Like to hear you comments.

-John

Sure, it's ALL straw-grabbing for that matter. Since we can't directly observe any of this, all we can do is infer from indirect observation that if this happens, then that must be what caused it, because what else could? And yes, it's also impossible to say (per the uncertainty principle) just where in orbit any given electron is, because knowing where it is changes when it's there... more of that space-time continuum stuff I guess.

You said "if this happens, then that must [emphasis added] be what caused it, because what else could?"

I think maybe that's where the string theory guys have a big say. It gets down to what happens "on the verge of things", so to speak.

europium are you listening?

"Grabbing at straws" really becomes a "catch-all" doesn't it? When we discuss those things that approach ∞, we usually defer to straws for lack of (usually) comprehension.

Those "nerds" that describe the inner workings of strings, n^th dimensions, etc. are more than likely, on to something that, within our own lifetimes, will probably become common knowledge.

Anyway, back at the ranch, while pin 5 of JK flipflop at location L7 is going in a negative direction, pin 8 of adder at N3 is feeling the effect and ...

Sorry, going back to my days of "on board" troubleshooting. Couldn't resist it (my instructor would be proud that I remembered).

Been thinking again? About vermin request for a mathematical solution. I'm not that good but maybe I can point to some possibilities. Seeing that every one else is horsing around.

In the formula E = MC^2, I take M to mean the energy contained in any specific volume of mass? And the relationship between masses is specific gravity. So goolgeing some tables, we have that a cubic metre of water is 1000, air is 1, hydrogen is 0.0696. I am suspect of air, some one may need to correct? So you would need a column 1000m high of air to be equivalent to the water, a hydrogen column 1/0.0696*1000= 14,368m high, and if space has a density close to zero then that column's height is any ones guess? The point I am making is, if that column is a specific volume of mass (dark matter), the energy is spread over quite a large volume of space.

We think of conventional matter as solid, liquid and gas, and they are a solid or a particles because they interact with each other with different levels of force, either repelling or bonding. The energy I associate with space is gravity, vermin has intimated that there may be others? So where is this leading?

If we have a particle travelling through space hypothetically for one second, then its path would represent a column of energy "X" m long (passed through), and here I'm thinking of one column of electrons at the pressure of one volt discharging in one second being one amp? So equating that to a volume of space in one second = virtual matter, or a display of an interaction between particles. Or is that distorting space a wee bit too far?

It does not take much to equate that if a forth state of matter is generated but stars, it can cause space to expand? And if we have gaseous galaxies a reverse process then there is the formula for a steady state scenario. Like I said I'm a novice and don't know any better.

Regards JD.

"if space has a density close to zero then that column's height is any ones guess?"

Perhaps you're forgetting that all the other mass/columns that you stated are "in reference to" the column of empty space. Thus the column's height is meaningless as stated.

That's like saying the pressure in my air compressor tank is 14.7 psi. i.e., zero! The height of the column is still zero. IMHO.

You know what jd, I think you've got something there!

If the pressure in the aforementioned tank is zero at 14.7 psi, then what is the BASE pressure of a so-called perfect vacuum? Is it 14.7 - 14.699999 or is it something we haven't yet considered?

Perhaps your column may have a height after all. Just how do we measure it?

Have been thinking of that, if space is expanding due to the fact that it is being supplied, then space is forcing matter apart? when I first thought of that I immediately thought of the distant stars, BUT the moon is slowly moving away from the earth, can a figure be put to that. Assuming it is not due to tidal forces. If the space between the earth and the moon is distorted by gravity, and that space has a small element of expansion in it, then maybe? More food for thought

Redards JD.

Just as an after thought, as vermin pointed out if you have piston and you pull a vacuum, then you can not pull it any lower, by that I assume he means zero = zero, there is no minus pressure, no minus 1 or two pounds. Therefore if space is distorted by gravity, how do you distort zero?

Regards JD.

Hi JT, you wrote: "BUT the moon is slowly moving away from the earth, can a figure be put to that. Assuming it is not due to tidal forces. If the space between the earth and the moon is distorted by gravity, and that space has a small element of expansion in it, then maybe?"

I speculated about the same thing in a Blog entry some time ago: http://cr4.globalspec.com/blogentry/1762/Is-Space-Really-Expanding.

Read just above my figure 3.

Jorrie

Thank you Jorrie for your input, I respect your opinion. I have read the post pointed too and your remarks above figure 3. I had not realised I was in tune with some current thinking, I must state that the remarks I have made on this subject where not influenced by any prior knowledge, and are pure speculation on my part. I say speculation but in reality are observations that anyone can make. If that is the case then maybe some one can run with it, and with further insight, add and develop it further. It has been a pleasant experience to freely express myself in this post by vermin. I look forward to see how it develops.

Regards JD.

Listen to Jorrie. Jorrie knows, Jorrie is wise - The expansion of the Universe, especially, the accelerating expansion, is more of a cosmologically scaled event rather than between particles or planets or even within galaxies.

With that said, let me address some of the stuff posted over the last several days (sorry I wasn't there).

The equation E=mc² means that energy and matter are basically interchangeable. The equation states that given any mass, you can determine how much energy that mass represents by multiplying that mass by the speed of light squared. So the densities of the mass are not relevant. It the amount of mass itself that is important.

Let's look at the piston thing again. Let's say that the piston is not all the way down inside the cylinder. So, there is a space between the top of the piston and the top of the cylinder. Now, "magically," let say we could suck all the atmosphere (particles) out of this space without the piston being sucked in. Next, we push the piston in toward the top of the cylinder. What we find is that while there is nothing besides empty space between the top of the piston and the top of the cylinder, we can push the piston in only so far.

Normal, everyday logic would have us believe that if there is a perfect vacuum between the top of the piston and the top of the cylinder, we should easily be able to push the piston all the way to the top of the cylinder with no effort at all. Oddly, what happens is as the space closes between the top of the piston and the top of the cylinder, we reach a point where we meet very strong Resistance in getting the piston in any further. This has to do with Jorrie's reference to the "Casimir effect." Make sure you check this out on Wikipedia.

Now, go back to my post on #14. Notice that the diagram shows a particle anti-particle pair being created out of empty space, traveling a short distance, then being attracted back toward each other, and finally disappearing back into empty space. Quantum Mechanics predicts this to happen for all sorts of particles and their anti-matter opposites - electrons & positrons, protons & anti-protons, baseballs & anti-baseballs... QM also predicts that the heavier the particle & and its antiparticle, the more rare the occurrence AND the shorter their existence until they disappear once again. We're talking 10^-20 seconds for the really long lived pairs, and something like 10^-30 seconds for heavier particle pairs. Now, let's get back to the original question and answer at FERMILABS.

Outer galactic space is about as low as the vacuum of space gets. At this point, we're talking about one atom/particle per cubic meter of space - that's really low. However, within that empty space, QM says that along with that single particle, there are a bunch of "virtual particle pairs" going in and out of existence. OK. So now we fire a real particle into the outer galactic regions of space. The questioner asked "Is there a speed limit on that particle?" Without QM, there is the Relativistic speed limit that no particle can travel at the speed of light. No matter how much energy we impart to that particle, it can never reach the speed of light because according to Relativity Theory, the faster the particle goes, the heavier it gets - we reach a point, where to attain the speed of light, it would take an infinite amount of energy. So that is Einstein's answer to the question.

The reply from FERMILABS was based not on Relativity, but more on quantum mechanics. So imagine that you're on the questioner's particle. You are now moving through a space that is the same as Einstein's space, but there are additional complications - i.e.; virtual particle pairs. This may be a bit gruesome, but think about running down a hall where a bunch of razor blades and anti-razor blades are going in and out of existence very VERY quickly. If you don't move too fast, your chances of running into a currently materialized pair of virtual razor blades is fairly low. However, if you run faster and faster down the hall, sooner or later you're going to hit a speed that significantly increases your chances of running into a currently materialized pair of virtual razor blades; as a result you will get nicked!

The same is true with a particle. The faster the particle moves through empty space the greater the odds (and QM is a lot about odds) are that the particle will hit a currently materialized virtual particle pair. If this happens, then BLAM!!! The original particle imparts its momentum to the two virtual particles. When this happens, the two virtual particles are not attracted back toward each other to disappear. Instead, the original particle's momentum is divided among the virtual particle pair, and they zip away from each other, and the Universe now has two new particles that it didn't have before!!!

So that's about it. My questions regarding the FERMILAB answer are two...

1. Given any particle, at what speed is the collision with the virtual particle pairs most likely to happen?
2. Does anything (e.g. the speed or mass of the particle) increase the number of virtual particles being created in its path?

jdretired, please let me know if any of this makes any sense.

Have read your post, it will take a little time to think through what you have said. It seems to be something that has occupied a lot of your thinking, and my thoughts on the matter are relatively new, outside the box? I have appreciated your remarks in the past and will try and be constructive in any reply.

Regards JD.

Hi Vermin,

Sorry again about no answers.

"QM also predicts that the heavier the particle & and its antiparticle, the more rare the occurrence AND the shorter their existence until they disappear once again."

It seems to me that this rules out the universe being created by a quantum fluctuation. It would have had a VERY short life!

From what you said about the piston, the density of the vacuum "field" increases the chances of hitting a virtual pair. I liked your analogy of the razor blades. I can accept that the speed would be lower that c, but I don't know if mass would affect it.

S

Remember that time (as we know it) didn't exist before the BB. So there was a really "nothing" period of whatever within which one of the biggest virtual particle pairs came into existence!!!

On the other hand, it might be false circular logic to think that what led to the dawn of the Universe has anything to do with physics that we observe within the Universe.

One more thing, while the position/momentum uncertainty is given by



The uncertainty regarding energy/time is given by

"...it might be false circular logic to think that what led to the dawn of the Universe has anything to do with physics that we observe within the Universe."

Good point! (see my tag line).

"


The uncertainty regarding energy/time is given by

"

I am not a physicist, and do understand what your point is. Can you explain in words?

S

OK. The uncertainty principle states that if you know one aspect of a particle in great detail a corresponding aspect will become very uncertain.

For example, if you know the position of an electron to a very high degree, you cannot know much at all about its momentum - the more you know about one, the less you know about the other. A similar circumstance of the uncertainty principle states that the proprieties of energy and time act the same way.

Here are a couple of links 1 and 2, the first you may have seen already. Also, you can Google on "Heisenberg uncertainty principle."

Hi Jorrie,

Are you saying that 27 of the 38mm per year that the moon is receding is caused by the expansion of space? I had it in my mind (from many years before the laser measurements) that the moon receded at 1/4 inch per century. Do you remember anything about that? If it is true, then the laser measurements must have been quite a shock. I wonder if anyone can accurately calculate the effect of the tides on the receding moon.

S

Hi SG. Yo asked: "Are you saying that 27 of the 38mm per year that the moon is receding is caused by the expansion of space?"

Not quite, but I said it could possibly be.

AFAIK, the mechanism for transferring the Earth's rotational energy to the moon as orbital energy is not well modelled and an error of 4:1 is still possible. Further, cosmologists are still debating the extent of the local expansion - remember dark energy is evenly spread over the universe, so it is here amongst us as well!

I do not recall the smaller figure that you quoted, but today it is verified to be about 3.8m per century.

Jorrie

"The equation E=mc² means that energy and matter are basically interchangeable. The equation states that given any mass, you can determine how much energy that mass represents by multiplying that mass by the speed of light squared. So the densities of the mass are not relevant. It the amount of mass itself that is important"

*****

http://cr4.globalspec.com/blogentry/4397/Alternative-Relativity

Post #4 "Take note: it is density that causes gravitational collapse, not total energy."

*****

Post #4 is a reply by Jorrie regarding a black hole, I don't think its out of context?

I have read the Casimir effect on Wikipedia, and found MHO in agreement with it. I had thought about how could dark matter possibly be, and trying to relate that to it being generated by stars. And speculated that a particle such as a neutron can be broken down into its building blocks, and as a neutron is measurable atomic particle it can be measured as it relates to a point in space? Dark matter building blocks permeating outward like a gas it will evenly distribute itself within a volume, the building block of matter having lost the bonding to a point produce a electromagnet field in a state of charged equilibrium? I think this is more in line with the present thinking, and it is this that expands? There are two different modes of expansion; mode 1, is like a bubble rising from the ocean depths, expanding as it nears the surface, in this mode the molecules of air remain constant. Mode 2, is the same as blowing air into a balloon, the volume increases but also do the number of molecules. One can then speculate that close to the stars dark matter is in mode 2, and as it expands out into deep space it act in mode 1. And to add a little spice to it, does dark matter in mode 2, interact with the black hole in the centre of a galaxy holding it in a state of equilibrium, sorry thought I'd just throw that one in.

****

"No matter how much energy we impart to that particle, it can never reach the speed of light because according to Relativity Theory, the faster the particle goes, the heavier it gets"

http://cr4.globalspec.com/blogentry/3579/Angular-Momentum-Challenge

"Post #4 The issue of mass that increases with velocity is no longer considered valid - mass means the rest mass and that's invariant."

Post #4 is a reply by Jorrie regarding my input to the above puzzle. I don't think the answer was conditional?

*****

So we come too the essence of your post #68. which evolves about the existence of virtual matter, and under what circumstances dos it occur and why? I like the casiri point of view, that space is a place filled with an electromagnetic field, and things like cosmic particles and photon have no mass, but are electromagnetic waves, like a wave moving horizontally across the water when the molecules are moving vertically. So that raises the question, if dark matter is an electromagnet field, is it always stable? What is the building block/s that make the difference between conventional matter and dark matter. If indeed dark matter is another state of mass ejected out into space by stars does it also eject the building block that has been stripped from conventional matter? And then does that block interact with the electromagnetic field to momentary create virtual matter? You could then say yes it does make sense and virtual matter does pop into and out of existence, and a particle could get nicked by them. In my other posts I thought along the lines of a bow wave in front of the particle at some velocity having a density capable to momentary creating virtual matter, thus causing a reaction and deflecting off and decaying.

Does this make sense. Regards JD.

"There are two different modes of expansion; mode 1, is like a bubble rising from the ocean depths, expanding as it nears the surface, in this mode the molecules of air remain constant. Mode 2, is the same as blowing air into a balloon, the volume increases but also do the number of molecules."

Hmmm...rising bubbles expand because the pressure surrounding them decreases. Thus if Mode 1 is valid, then from whence the pressure on the matter expanding into "space"? Presuming it's the universe we're talking about here, the expansion isn't into anything, it's rather the expansion of everything. Can we say the universe is expanding into someplace, when it's supposed to be everyplace that there is? And if we can say that, then that place must be one very high-pressure area indeed, to push back against all the universe. Now Mode 2 is a different matter (so to speak). We do have an increase in the number of atoms/subatomic particles do we not? If matter is equivalent to energy, and stellar evolution turns some of that energy into new matter, then that mode is valid no matter what other conditions apply. But the expansion of the universe is tied to the increase in matter by what mechanism? Doesn't seem to me that current theory makes that connection (again so to speak). So is there, or is there not, a Mode 3 that we haven't addressed? Perhaps a non-conditional expansion that is not only different, but different in kind. Universe expansion moves galaxies. They grow farther apart over time. We're told one day they will be separated to the extent one will not realize the existence of another. This is an expansion of space not apparently tied directly to the existence of matter or energy. Well, now... (???) Thoughts?

"Can we say the universe is expanding into someplace, when it's supposed to be everyplace that there is?"

In hindsight I think I should have numbered the modes the other way round? With its origin being mode one and its progression mode two, and in this reply I will do so. Awake again in the middle of the night, thinking of that, and Jorrie explanation regarding the red shift in a photon due to the expansion of space, and thinking are we dealing here with a problem of relativity? Is what we are seeing really the case?

In a balloon the pressure comes from its fellow molecules. Therefore in mode one where dark matter is constantly being replenished, it puts pressure on the surrounding matter to expand to make room, at some point at the edges the reason to expand is the inherited need for room only and it moves into mode two? And I suppose if there is a point of equilibrium, where expansion ceases they you could have a mode three? This last statement is dangerous tertiary, as it goes against the present way of thinking, if deep space is not expanding then galaxies are not flying apart? But the red shift in photons says it is, so do photons get there red shift from when it leaves it source, passing through the three different modes of space? And red shift may have more to do with density than expansion? And if galaxies are expanding apart why do they collide? Why does the expanding force of space between them not prevent it?

After that tirade I think I'll take cover. Regards JD.

jdretired,

You're really hashing over 1800's astrophysics. Perhaps (if you already haven't) you might want to read a physics book that concentrates on the advances and changes of thinking that took place around the beginning of the 20th century.

First, what Jorrie and I have been trying to tell you is that the expansion of the Universe is on the EXTREMELY large scale, and not on even the galactic scale... The Andromeda galaxy is on a direct collision course with our own galaxy. So, on the local galactic scale, expansion does not really take affect. In fact, the light from Andromeda is Doppler shifted toward the blue (not the red) because it's moving toward us. The expansion shows up only among incredibly VAST distances such as those existing between galactic super-clusters.

When you think of expanding space, you have to think of it expanding in three dimensions (not just two, like the skin of a balloon analogy). Also, you asked "what is space expanding into?" The real answer - we don't know! There are a lot of VERY VERY big questions that our little monkey brains are wrestling with right now. However, if you look how far we've come in just 500 years, it's quite amazing! So, give us time to figure it out! Also, the increasing distance between Earth and the Moon has nothing to do with expanding space. Think about it, if the expansion of space doesn't affect the collision of two monster galaxies, how much affect is it going to have on two galactic specks of dust like the Earth and its Moon. If I remember correctly, the change between our two spheres has already been worked out by simple, classical Newtonian physics a long time ago.

Also, as far as anyone really knows, space is not "something," like a particle or a planet or even a gas - and it does not act like one. Another great moment in history is when Michelson & Morley performed their great experiment to forever banish the concept of the æther!!! Before this, most physicists thought that space must be filled with something or IS something that provides a medium through which electromagnetic waves can propagate. They proved that space is "not a thing." It's more like a framework on which existence acts out its stuff, and for the most part, is empty. This delighted Einstein, because it proved his point that "if you can't see it, or measure it, or detect it in any way, then get it outta my face! I don't have to deal with it!!!"

On another front, you also are repeating the old controversy (1940s?) regarding the beginning and nature of the Universe, between Ed Hubble and Fred Hoyle. The short version - Hubble was for the BB and the red shift due to the expansion of space, while Hoyle did not believe in the BB or expansion, and championed the "Steady State" model, in which new particles are being created all the time. Hubble won.

Just to add, I think you're spinning your wheels a bit because you are somewhat unfamiliar with the background of current astrophysics thinking. You don't really need to learn super-calculus or extra-dimensional algebra or some other exotic form of math, just read about the theories and why they are "currently" accepted. There are a lot of good books out there to choose from. Thumb through, if there's a bunch of squiggly math you don't recognize, then look for another. If you're having fun now coming up with theories and models, you'll be amazed how much more fun you'll have with more background!

Hi vermin. You wrote:

"So, on the local galactic scale, expansion does not really take affect. In fact, the light from Andromeda is Doppler shifted toward the blue (not the red) because it's moving toward us. The expansion shows up only among incredibly VAST distances such as those existing between galactic super-clusters."

This is no longer a 'secure statement' Our own Local Group's outer Dwarf Galaxies are following the Hubble flow from our vantage point. (Chernin et. al, a pdf download from Arxiv.org), which I also reported in reply #10 of one of my Blog entries.

Only the Milky Way, Andromeda and the very close dwarfs does not, but the same "dark forces" are at work at closer range, it's just that gravity overwhelms it there. I have speculated on this on another Blog entry, as discussed with SG in reply #62 above.

Jorrie

Hi, Jorrie.

Yes, I agree with you. I suppose I overstated my position (taking a bit of writer's license) to hammer home the point that accelerating expansion is not a daily event. Each morning, your toes are not further from your ears because of the expansion of space.

I may have over done it a little.

Yes I think its time to sit back and learn a bit more, so I think I'll stop slashing about in the water and go sit on the beach. I accept that the expansion of the universe is on an extremely large scale, and I was aware of Andromeda, but not by name, I was going to mention it but let it pass.

All appreciated. Regards JD.

Really, check out the books out there... Also, don't forget to visit your public library. They're so lonely in there since the Internet came along, but they do have a lot of good books for free!

Vermin,

First, I agree with Jorrie's response about gravity overcoming the expansion effect when talking about Andromeda coming closer. To me it doesn't make sense that the expansion effect would not be local and everywhere.

I think you may have contradicted yourself a liitle bit here:

"...space is not "something," like a particle or a planet or even a gas - and it does not act like one"

Think about the piston you decribed earlier. Now, about the concept of the aether, what is it? I must be confused, but isn't the 'framework' doing the same thing the aether was supposed to do - provide a 'medium' that would 'conduct' electromagnetic waves?

"...Hoyle did not believe in the BB or expansion, and championed the "Steady State" model, in which new particles are being created all the time. Hubble won."

Don't the present theories have 'Dark Energy' creating new particles all the time?

Regards,

S

Hi StandardsGuy,

Think about the piston you described earlier. Now, about the concept of the aether, what is it? I must be confused, but isn't the 'framework' doing the same thing the aether was supposed to do - provide a 'medium' that would 'conduct' electromagnetic waves?

In the piston experiment, It doesn't matter whether your initial vacuum is 100 m³ or 1 X 10^-10 m. In both cases, virtual particles are going in and out of existence. This only becomes more apparent as you reduce the volume of the vacuum, and nothing more.

As far as the æther goes, it was thought that empty space wasn't really empty, but was filled with something that conducted forces among objects. they reasoned that empty space could not conduct these forces by itself. The interferometer experiment proved that empty space did not contain this mystical æther. Hence, this is why modern physics believes that the forces (all 4, maybe 5?) are really the interaction of objects exchanging virtual particles (let me know if you want more on this). Currently, there is only one force that is considered to propagate through space itself, and that is gravity - which is believed to exist as a result of the bending of the spacial framework in 3-dimensions by matter.

Don't the present theories have 'Dark Energy' creating new particles all the time?

As far as I know, no they do not. Remember that dark matter and dark energy are still completely undetected and it's only imagined that they might exist. There have been a few observations that could be interpreted as exposing the existence of dark matter, however, they are far from being accepted by the scientific community. Furthermore, I have not heard of a correlation between dark energy and virtual particles - but, then, virtual particles never get to become real, except within very rare circumstances. If you want to know more about Hoyle's model of the Universe, please follow the links I provided in my previous post.

Hi Vermin,

I am familiar with Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, but didn't recognize the formulas you showed. I am not particularly untested in Hoyle's model.

"...modern physics believes that the forces (all 4, maybe 5?) are really the interaction of objects exchanging virtual particles (let me know if you want more on this)"

By all means, tell me more!

"Currently, there is only one force that is considered to propagate through space itself, and that is gravity - which is believed to exist as a result of the bending of the spacial framework in 3-dimensions by matter."

Don't you have this backwards? - I've alway heard that the bending of the framework is caused by gravity. What has led to the opinion that the graviton doesn't exist?

S

OK. To answer your last question first, Relativistic physicists believe that gravity is caused by matter bending space and time - matter distorts the space and time around it. The deformation of space/time is not caused by gravity, that is what gravity is. If a space probe moves on a path that causes it to curve about a planet, classical physics says "The probe is experiencing the pull of gravity from the planet." On the other hand, General Relativity says the probe took a curved path around the planet because the probe is following the curve of space/time about the planet - and following that curved path is what the classical physicists think is the "pull" of gravity.

However, there are an awful lot of Quantum physicists looking for a particle, called the "graviton." Let me explain why here is where Relativity and QM part ways and irritate the hell out of theoretical physicists!

So, Quantum physicists, looked at the whole "action at a distance" thing, and said "Bull crap! There can't be magical forces that act over distances! Without the aether, forces cannot be transmitted through empty space!" If you, like, pick up two magnets and put the same poles pointing toward each other, that repulsion you feel can't be a "force" (a ghost-like entity to a Q physicist) acting between the two magnets! There has got to be more to it. Something has got to be carrying the force we feel. IMHO, here is roughly what the Quantum physicists came up with...

OK. If there is no such thing as action at a distance, then something must be carrying or transmitting the force from one object to another. Here, I refer back to a previous post about the Uncertainty Principle. So, Quantum physicists deduced that if action at a distance doesn't exist, what can be carrying the forces we see in nature? Their answer was particles (precisely, the exchange of particles) must be carrying the force. Keep reading...

They're first success was to explain that electric and magnet attraction and repulsion is caused by the exchange of "virtual" photons. So, when two electrons repel each other, the repulsion is carried by each electron emitting virtual photons. The momentum of these photons carries the repulsive force to the opposite electron, which pushes each electron apart. So how long can these virtual photons last and over what distance can they operate? It turn out that since photons have no rest-mass, QM (and the Uncertainty Principle) says they can exist for an indefinite amount of time and for an infinite distance - so if the Universe consisted of only two electrons, hundreds of light-years apart, they could exchange virtual photons. But wait!!!

Here's where the Uncertainty Principle really comes into effect. Because we cannot know anything about these particles that have no known rest mass, they're free to ultimately act at an infinite distance between the two electrons that trade them.

From here, some guy (sorry) associated the electromagnetic force with the "weak" force that causes neutrinos to interact with other matter. If I remember correctly, this was called the W particle, which reacts with matter only if it gets within 10^-15 cm away from other matter, and which set a rather heavy rest mass for a W particle.

Then, there was the intermediate vector boson (? again) that intermediates the "strong" nuclear force, which is the particle exchanged that causes the strong nuclear force, which holds particles together within the nucleus of an atom. Next, came the "gluons" that hold the quarks together that allow protons and other nuclear particles to exist. Notice here, that as the distance over which a force acts, the higher the mass of the particle that exchanges the force.

So where are we now? The Quantum physicists are trying to find a particle that unites all of the four forces together into particle exchanges. In this case, they're looking for some way to come up with or find the all elusive "graviton" particle, which as yet has eluded detection.

And that is the "big split" between Quantum physicists and Relativistic physicists. While gravity continues to seem like a distortion of space/time, it does not seem to exist as a particle that can trade gravitational force, which is basically why Quantum physicists are pissed off! they believe they've been able to unify three out of the four forces, but they still can't unify that last, damn, force.

So does this help in understanding the particle nature of physical forces?

Hi Vermin,

Thanks for the explanations. Your first paragraph is explaining Einsteins theory of gravity, but in a somewhat different way than I have heard. Yes, matter distorts space, but is it because it causes gravity or because it 'contains' gravity? I think the latter makes more sense (especially after reading your other paragraphs). I know that most of Einsteins assertions have been proven, but I have been reluctant to accept this theory because it does not explain the force of objects not moving. In fact it does not explain any force. I read this theory in a book in a chapter that was titled "The abolition of force". When the earth goes around the sun (according to this theory), it travels in a straight line (through curved space), meaning that there is no need for a 'pulling' force at all. But the problem is, there is a force between two masses, otherwise C.V. Boys would not have been able to 'weigh' the earth, and we would all float off into space! Maybe the mass has an exchange particle that acts not only on the framework, but upon other masses too. Or maybe there are 2 exchange particles involved.

I didn't know that they had theorized that electric and magnet attraction and repulsion was between "virtual" photons. I think they are trying to still keep the aether, but change it some. Maybe it's just that God said "Let there be a spooky action at a distance", and it became law. Get over it everybody.

"Notice here, that as the distance over which a force acts [gets smaller]?, the higher the mass of the particle that exchanges the force."

How can this be if you are talking about quarks which are extremely small having exchange particles with more mass that proton exchange particles have?

"So does this help in understanding the particle nature of physical forces?"

Well it helps me understand the present theories of physical forces.

Thanks again

S

We do not fly off the Earth because the Earth (being matter) curves space/time, as well. to get off this planet, we have to create machines that can move out of the Earth's "gravity well." These are called rockets for now.

The closer the distance over which a force acts, the heavier the rest mass of the particle is in accord with the Uncertainty Principle for Energy versus Time. To correct a little, I think that mesons, and not "intermediate vector bosons," are responsible for the Strong Nuclear Force, at about 10^-12 cm. And then, within subatomic particles, the quarks are held together by Glueons. Heavier and even shorter lived.

This really isn't the æther or action at a distance, because QM clearly states that these particles have to be exchanged for a force to happen. So, to use a baseball analogy, The pitcher doesn't just have the ball and then the catcher has the ball - Instead the pitcher throws the ball to the catcher, and he feels the force of the pitch. He then throws the ball back to the pitcher and he feels the force.

Back to glueons for a second - remember that all virtual particles get canceled out in the end (usually). So you don't have heavy particles laying around that you have to account for, they wipe themselves out, and all you're left with is the force that they impart to the interacting particles. In this case, quarks.

Anyway, as far as I know, this is the Quantum Mechanical view of forces between particles and the Universe.

So here's where it gets weird (at least to me)... Let's say we charge a large tower with high voltage, say 10,000 Volts. We can imagine that electric field propagating away from the tower at the speed of light. So, any one near the tower is in an electric field of some part of 10,000 Volts. Next, we turn off and on the voltage very quickly using a telegraph key. This gives us a spark generated transmitter. To me this seems about as far away from QM as you can get, however, because each electron has only one amount of charge and all electrons are the same in this respect, the electric field is quantised. Yet, the transmission of the voltage changes seem to act as waves moving through the electric field sent out by the tower. This doesn't sound very much like particles. Here's where QM gets very fuzzy for me. And here's where I could use some help. I don't know it all!!!

Yet, the transmission of the voltage changes seem to act as waves moving through the electric field sent out by the tower. This doesn't sound very much like particles.

Lets try changing our thinking a bit here, a particle is energy but a force is an environment ? Like in nature and life forms, they exist because they survive in an opportune environment? For an electron to flow there needs to be little or no resistance for it to do so, the ability to pass from shell to shell, an environment? Like that play thing where a number of ball bearings hanging from a string transmit from the first one struck directly to the last. In the case of voltage, atomic shells, like in a transistor that produces an environment, (tunnels) , through which an electron can travel. To use your analogy, if a pitcher throws the ball it is felt by the receiver, but if you change the environment and place a high wall between them, and the pitcher lacks the energy to throw it over, then a force is not transmitted. So in atomic structure I assume that environments are important? The reason why a neutron decays when removed from the nucleus. Just a stab at what it may be?

Regards JD.

There's a difference between an electron that is in an electric circuit and an electron bound about a nucleus of an atom.

Conductors (copper, iron, gold,...) conduct because metals, in this case, have a lot of unbound electrons. So, if you pick up a piece of copper, what you're holding in your hands is a 3-D lattice of copper atoms bound up in a crystal structure, AND a whole bunch of free electrons contained within the limits of the piece you're holding. The current flows when a potential voltage is applied across the copper, which cause the free electrons to flow in the direction of the applied voltage.

Electrons within atoms are bound to the nucleus at different energy levels and within different quantum states (shell energy, angular momentum, spin, etc.). These electrons are pretty much stuck to the atom unless something, like a photon, comes along with the right amount of energy to bump an electron into another quantum state or, if sufficiently energetic, to knock an electron out of its shell. Of course, the further the shell is away from the nucleus, the higher the energy of the electron, and the more likely it is that an electron can get bumped such that it escapes completely, and leaves the atom as a positively charged ion.

In a semiconductor, there are also a lot of free electrons, however, the structure of semiconductors is such that you might say there aren't quite enough free electrons to go around. As a result, some empty spaces exist where there should be free electrons. So, just as the free electrons can wander about, so can the free spaces, sort of like bubbles in a glass of beer - the beer is electrons and the bubbles are where there are no electrons.

Now, consider that since that electrons have a local negative charge with respect to the atomic, crystal lattice, the holes act as if they have a positive charge with respect to the atomic, crystal lattice. So, now you have a material that seems to contain both negative AND positive free wandering charges. And with a material like that, you can do all sorts of neat stuff, like amplifiers, and diodes, etc..

You also used the word "tunneling." With respect to this word, I am aware only of "tunneling diodes." This is another QM thing (by the way, so is semiconducting). In tunneling diodes, you basically have two conductors separated by a non-conducting barrier made of some type of insulator. If a current is applied to this device, free electrons will begin to build up on one side of the barrier. All of these electrons will be in different quantum states and at different energy levels. Remember that particles (electrons in this case) also act as waves, and if one of these electron has the correct wavelength, it will simply jump to the other side of the barrier - thus tunneling. By the way, one of the annoying aspects of tunneling is it seems to occur instantaneously, taking no time - hence "seeming" to move without respect for Relativity or the speed of light. Spooky!!!

Hi JD,

I like your analogy of the high wall. Tunneling would be like the baseball going through little holes in the wall, but instantaneously.

I was thinking about virtual particles. Maybe they are real particles that wander in from one of the other 7 dimensions. Any thoughts on this?

S

Hi S

Don't know much about dimensions, about as much as know about atoms. I'm only familiar with the first four, x, y, z and t, (time), these all seem singular in nature? A progression. If I was to hazard a guess on the others I would then have to think in multiples? Relativity, variation, equilibrium, environment. And possibly etc?

Environment I find interesting at the moment, where as matter has energy, its the environment that dictates how it will play out? In a resent post the question was asked, can we create particles, a person who's brother in law would sit down at an institution with others and discuss the possibility of a particular particle existing, and sure enough when an experiment was devised the particle would be found. One could then put forward an argument, create an environment and matter will oblige? So if we have a particle travelling at velocity, could one then say that the total energy at that moment is the sum of the innate energy of the particle plus the kinetic energy of motion, could one then argue that because the particle has an excess of energy and in that environment it may try to turn that extra energy into matter, a virtual particle, but as it not sufficient energy, the particle fails. The origin particle has moved back into equilibrium with its environment by disposing of the excess energy? So may be the dimension of environment?

Regards JD.

That sounds like more of a question for Jorrie!

That is a distinct possibility, although because of the nature of the particles popping into existence and then annihilating each other without creating radiation, what about this - The collision of two high energy photons colliding in a different dimension than ours, causes two particles to pop into our space/time. Then, when they annihilate each other, they send the two high energy photons back into their original dimensions.

Just a thought.

As late as 1920, Einstein himself still spoke of a type of ether that was not a "ponderable medium" but something of significance nonetheless:"...More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether... Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether... According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment

Been reading up on Michelson—Morley experiment, that disproved the existence of an ether, So if one sets about formulating a concept as to whether an ether exists, then one has to put that concept to the test? Bearing in mind the above quote by Einstein, did they prove that an ether does not exist, or did they prove there concept of what ether is, to be incorrect? Also pondering your remarks in post #88, with regard to gravity. When thinking about these things one can not help but draw comparisons to know things, for example, voltage? This is a force that exists as a potential to bring atoms back into equilibrium, and that potential is effected by resistance? Now if gravity is a force, a potential between deep space and matter, and space being the lighter element (dark matter) that requires to move into equilibrium ,( put out of equilibrium but the BB), then measuring gravity as gravitons is like measuring voltage for voltitons? So does the ether move in any one direction or is purely a resistance to a proton regardless of direction, dark matter not imparting any motion only resistance?

And in MHO neutrons do seem to be central to the problem? What is anti matter? In a another post anti matter is regarded to be produced by neutron stars? Is it not possible that when a neutron is produced within a star, that the electron and proton exchange mass so that when a neutron is created it is comprised of a negative and a positive particle of equal mass and charge plus a third particle? and which particle is selected to decomposes into a negative or a positive electron (depending on which way the exchange of mass goes), is dependant on the third ejected particle? so in neutron stars can the third particle be randomly exchanged? So are these third party particle evolved in the existance of virtul matter when struct by an object travelling at speed through space, do they control which way the ball bounces?

More speculation. Regards JD.

A correction to my last post I used the word proton, (resistance to a proton regardless of direction), instead of photon, a remark directed at the Michelson-Morley experiment.

Another thought crossed my mind regarding the expression expanding universe, and gravity waves, and the speculation that the moons gradual movement away from the earth may be connected to that expansion? And that gravity is referred to as distorting space and time. I think that experiments have been conducted to detect any gravity waves, I was wondering if there are any records from those experiments that proves that gravity is a constant, I think I have seen somewhere that gravity would eventual arrest the expansion of the universe and fall back into a singularity. Is gravity possible being affected by distance, like voltage resistance, is it slowly weakening due to that increase in distance? So many questions without answers?

Regards JD.

Hi JD. I can't help with the particle part (vermin's domain), but I can help with the gravity part.

You wrote: "Another thought crossed my mind regarding the expression expanding universe, and gravity waves, and the speculation that the moons gradual movement away from the earth may be connected to that expansion?"

The latter is merely speculation - there is no evidence so far of the Moon moving away from Earth more than what can be attributed to the tidal forces. I think I started that speculation on this forum in some previous thread here.

You wrote: "I was wondering if there are any records from those experiments that proves that gravity is a constant,..."

What has been established beyond reasonable doubt is that Newton's gravitational constant G is really constant. Obviously, the gravitational force between two masses falls off with the inverse square of distance (F = GmM/r²). As the universe expands, the gravitational forces trying to counteract the expansion also decrease.

Then, to complicate things, there is the enigmatic 'dark energy' that apparently speeds up the expansion, but it is not quite repulsion between masses. It is more like repulsion between space and space... bizarre!

Jorrie