Prev: Flow over flow
Next: Properties of a preferred frame, an inertial frame in SR and
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