Quote:
Originally Posted by Occams Ghost
I hope you are asking these question geniunly for correct answers, and not trying to make a mockery of my work.
|
I comment on the nonsense that is in your post, for all I care you can stop with this thing you call theory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Occams Ghost
''what is this supposed to mean? freezing vacuum? vacuum means there is nothing there, nothing there means there is nothing to give it a temperature, unless you have background radiation like in space, which is something else then the temperature of vacuum. -273 CELSIUS I think you mean is absolute zero on the KELVIN scale. Get your facts right, -273 K does not exists.''
If you removed all the matter and energy from the vacuum, an infinite amount of energy still exists. This is called the Zero-Point Energy Field, and if it where possible to freeze the vacuum down to -273K, then there would still be movement.
|
Once more -273 Kelvin DOES NOT EXIST. ZPE is not infinite, and there cannot be motion in vacuum, because vacuum means there are no particles to move, unless you invoke here the virtual particle sea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Occams Ghost
''HUH? what is infinite movement? If we reach 0 Kelvin all motion stops of the cooled specimen. Would that be a limit to FINITE motion? that there cannot be no-motion?''
No, i have just shown you to be incorrect here.
|
You have done none of the kind, you say vacuum which contains particles (impossible). You relate this now suddenly to cooled down particles and whatever. You are mixing up stuff, I am just commenting on your mess.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Occams Ghost
''Uhhhhh, then why the comment above that scientists created matter out of light. Don't the photons have to interact to create the matter? And why would Bose-Einstein statistics disallow photons to interact? And why are virtual photons electrically charged? Are you mixing here virtual photons with virtual particle pairs?''
We can force photons to hit each other, but normally in reality, they do not interact with each other. I do believe i had made this clear.
|
But they DO, e.g. in strong radiation fields in the magnetospheres of neutron stars. From Volwerk et al. (1993, Space Science Review, vol. 68, pg. 363-364) (and yes that is me)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Volwerk et al.
There are three possible mechanisms for pair creation in this case (i.e. pair creation in the polar cap region of pulsars)
1. Photon-B-field line collition; mean free path: l approx 106 cm,
2. Electron-photon collision; cross section: sigma propto ln(hf)
3. Photon-photon collision; cross section: sigma propto (hf)-1 ln(hf)
|
And the same happens in various stong radiation fields.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Occams Ghost
''NOT AT ALL! One of the way or creating electron-positron pairs in a neutron star magnetosphere is by photon-photon collisions. Get your facts right.
You have not presented anything yet, apart from some correct and some incorrect physics, but there has been presented no model at all unifying the photon-photon interaction with particle-antiparticle interaction.''
Learn how to read and take in. If the first energy in the universe was the photon, then all types of matter are forms of evolved light. Photons are the most primal particle known. Magneto-stars and whatever have nothing to do with what i am talking about.
|
I can read and I can understand what is written. Who cares what the first particle is in this case. You claim photon-photon collisions do not occur in nature, I tell you that they are an important method of creating particle pairs. Wheter or not neutronstars are important for your model is beside the case.
Looking to the development of the universe indeed, in the beginning there was light, and the photon saw it was good. Then a little later there was a shift in the balance between matter and radiation etc. etc. it is all there in "the first three minutes."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Occams Ghost
''Not only in theory, but also in practice, as your claim in the beginning was and which I found for you on the web. This now has been done in the lab.
Oh dear, now suddenly we have to have an eather, where did that come from?
And what kind of babble do you have at the end there? I think the only place where there is no matter might be in ad hominim, do not go there. So basically, you need to come up with something significant, citations of your sources, better description of values you assume to be correct, etc. etc.
Like I said in the other thread, concentrate on one thing at the time. I am a professional space physicist and I cannot write two papers at the time. Now, this may be because I am a bad scientist, but I kinda think that it has to do with keeping ones focus point on the topic, instead of straying in every which direction.''
The aether is the Zero-Point Field. Check Diracs, ''Do we need an Aether?'' in respect to a quantum aether. The answer is yes.
Now... go and learn some physics. I wouldn't be as so bold as to post nonesense when i know fine well anyone in the world can read it.
|
If the eathere is ZPE then call it ZPE, because it has nothing to do with the eather that was supposedly necessary to let electromagnetic waves propagate through vacuum. And that is the problem with you, you just redefine accepted meanings of physics and math without stating that you put a new meaning to those terms.
I study physics every day, it's my job, OC, and I learn something every day. Unfortunately, I have yet to find something to learn from all the threads you have started on BAUT, apart from that most of it is nonsense.