Questions on the big bang expanding universe.

[Ben Dhyan]

So gnositic, here is a paper by Timothy H Boyer dealing with the Classical Zero-Point Radiation and Relativity

On edit..the link. Classical Zero-Point Radiation and Relativity: The Problem of...

The physicists of the early 20th century were unaware of two ideas which are vital to understanding some aspects of modern physics within classical theory. The two ideas are: 1) the presence of classical electromagnetic zero-point radiation, and 2) the importance of special relativity. In classes of modern physics today, the problem of blackbody radiation within classical physics is still described in the historical context of the early 20th century. However, the inclusion of classical zero-point radiation and of relativity now allows a completely satisfactory classical understanding of blackbody radiation with the Planck spectrum, as well as of some other aspects of modern physics. Here we sketch the current classical understanding of blackbody radiation, pointing out that thermodynamics allows the presence of classical zero-point radiation, and that use of nonrelativistic physics leads to the Rayleigh-Jeans spectrum while relativistic physics gives the Planck spectrum. The current textbooks of modern physics are a century out of date in presenting the connections between classical and quantum physics.

It seems clear that ZPE is a seen as a radiation regardless of where you are coming from...

Plank Radiation Law. https://www.britannica.com/science/Plancks-radiation-law
Rayleigh-Jeans Law Rayleigh–Jeans law - Wikipedia

 

[Polymath257]

Your *largely replace" is nonsens too.
Einstein´s speculative *rubber sheet" model of *curved space* is based on *the Newtonian gravity* from the very start. And in ALL standing cosmological model the Newtonian *occult gravity agency* evidently plays a main role in all theories. Your largely *Einsteinian replace* don´t comply at all.

Simply false. Einstein's ideas are mathematically *very* different than Newton's and are NOT 'based' on the Newtonian methods.

<snip>

Exerpt:
"The electromagnetic attraction between atomic nuclei and their orbital electrons holds atoms together. Electromagnetic forces are responsible for the chemical bonds between atoms which create molecules, and intermolecular forces. The electromagnetic force governs all chemical processes, which arise from interactions between the electrons of neighboring atoms".

# 1 - Note this especially for a start:
"The electromagnetic attraction between atomic nuclei and their orbital electrons holds atoms together".

Does that ring a bell? *Holding atoms together* as in the Newtonian *occult agency force* theory of "accreation* and *the Sun holding planets in their orbits*? Well it really should give you a high ringing bell!

Yes, the E&M force holds atoms together. That is NOT gravity at work, I agree. But that is NOT AT ALL the same as what happens in the solar system.

Here you have the real cause and explanation for the *Newtonian occult power agency* of the *accreation* terminology and it also complies in all different nucleosynthetic theories in cosmology. Accreation don´t happend via a *Newtonian occult attraction agency* but via the E&M forces working on the atoms.

# 2 - Then we have the last sentense of the quote:
"Electromagnetic forces are responsible for the chemical bonds between atoms which create molecules, and intermolecular forces. The electromagnetic force governs all chemical processes, which arise from interactions between the electrons of neighboring atoms".

This is correct.

I certainly hope you to agree in the fact that your body consists of atoms and of molecules which forms cells!? This is nucleosynthesis on the chemical and biological scales.

No, it has NOTHING to do with nucleosynthesis. In fact, it is absolutely clear from this that you have NO idea what nucleosynthesis even is.

Without the sufficient amount of electric currents and magnetic fields in you body and mind, your body and brain will have decreased functions; you´ll get more and more sick and more and more unconscious - until the E&M force leaves your body and leave this to decade.

Do you really understand how it works? Have you done your research and relevant investigations? Are your nucleosynthesis investigations of stellar matters consistent and connected to the galactic nucleosynhesis?

Again, this only shows you simply don't understand what the term 'nucleosynthesis' actually means. It has NOTHING to do with biology.

Quote:
"Nuclear fusion is a reaction in which two or more atomic nuclei are combined to form one or more different atomic nuclei and subatomic particles (neutrons or protons)". Compare this to the noted paragraphs # 1 and # 2 above.

OK, compared. They are not talking about the same things at all.

Cosmological fusion and nucleosynthesis are all connected with gaseous and *metallic* atoms, molecules and the logical governing E&M force. It has nothing to do with the *occult Newtonian gravity accreation agency* or to do with *attraction between two or more celestial objects* at all.

Compared to the Sun, much stronger nuclear (synthetic) gamma and x-rays are beaming out of the galactic poles far out beyond the Solar System position. Stars and Supernovas are formed by this strong galactic force, and you cannot refer to *Stellar Nucleosynthesis* without including the *Galactic E&M Nucleosynthesis*

The presence of gamma rays does not imply nucleosythnesis is going on.

It doesn´t matter as the basic Newtonian *occult gravity agency force* derives from 17th century without ever have been explained dynamically then or now. It´s STILL an *occult worshipping* all over in the cosmological and astrophysical places.

As long as you don´t accept the electromagnetic influence on atoms as quoted from consensus links above, I can´t take your foolish personal remarks seriously at all.

The quotes you gave are correct, but you clearly don't understand what they are saying.

It´s NOT me who worship *fantastic occult Newtonian fairy agency forces", but you.

Yawn.

 

[Polymath257]

Native said: ↑
"Electromagnetic forces are responsible for the chemical bonds between atoms which create molecules, and intermolecular forces. The electromagnetic force governs all chemical processes, which arise from interactions between the electrons of neighboring atoms".

So, when I quote consensus definitions, you define the paragraph to be completely wrong? Of course an atomic nucleus don´t change naturally, and more added atoms only changes forms, sizes, mass and E&M charges, the more they bond electromagnetically together.

The part you quoted was correct. The second paragraph, containing your claims, was wrong. There is no such thing as 'biological nucleosynthesis'. The reason? Nothing in biology affects the nuclei of the atoms.

This is really the basic description and explanation of the Newtonian *occult agency "force of gravity"* in where masses by *occult agencies* are hypothesized to be formed by *contracting collisions, explosions and accreations* all over in cosmos.

There are no Newtonian *occult agency force* in my cosmological conception, hence also no kind of *occult dark agencies" of matter, energy or dark holes.

(It´s really also the Theory of Everything, but I don´t like to brag about it too much )

You need to extend your definition of *atomic nucelous*, quote:

"The atomic nucleus is the small, dense region consisting of protons and neutrons at the center of an atom, . . ."

This is the basic definition of an *atomic nucleus* where ever it works.

Remember, in chemical, biological, celestial and galactic nucleosynthesis, we´re not talking of *atom bombs* here but of atomic nucleous which electromagnetically binds other atoms into molecules to cells and so on, thus creatiing every formed objects you can think of in the Universe, included your good self.

Wrong. The atomic nucleus does NOT bind other atoms into molecules. That is simply not how it works.

About Nuclear reaction, quote:

"In nuclear physics and nuclear chemistry, a nuclear reaction is semantically considered to be the process in which two nuclei, or a nucleus and an external subatomic particle, collide (#1) to produce one or more new nuclides. Thus, a nuclear reaction must cause a transformation of at least one nuclide to another.(#2) If a nucleus interacts with another nucleus or particle and they then separate without changing the nature of any nuclide, the process is simply referred to as a type of nuclear scattering (#3), rather than a nuclear reaction".

Yes, this is correct.

--------------
#1 Atoms anywhere don´t *collide*, but bond together (or repels from another) via E&M forces which is working on in levels of charges. *Collision* is a reminicens from the *Newtonian occult agency* term *gravitational collision*.

Yes, atoms and molecules collide all the time. But that is irrelevant to *nuclear* reactions. You are confusing the nuclear reactions with the chemical reactions.

# 2

Nuclei don´t transform from one to another, but one bonds and adds to another, thus forming everything.

Again, simply false and for a number of reasons. For example, radioactivity *is* a nucleus transforming into another nucleus.

Second, nuclei don't bond together except in fusion reactions. You are again confusing nuclear reactions and chemical reactions.

# 3 *Nuclear scattering*

.This *scattering* i.e. 'divisional formation* also take place in the formational process in divisions of cells - and even all up to the level of the formational process of forming stars in galaxies.

No, this has NOTHING to do with cell division.

In short: it´s all a question of understanding how the E&M force works in nature and space: When an electric current is at stage, it induces magnetic fields which works in *dynamical spheres* of Attraction; Assemblance; Sortation; Divison and Repulsion.

Nonsense.

Again

This in not consistent. Molecules are made by atoms = nuclei, so as said before, you need to extend your nucleous definiton to ALL levels where atoms are at the scenario everywhere in chemistry, biology and cosmology.

No, atoms are NOT the same as nuclei. And no, we do NOT need to extend the definition of a nucleus. The one we are using works quite well, thank you.

Nucleosynthesis does´nt take place in the Sun as it doesn´t produce anyting else but reminicent issues from it´s initial formation. The observed solar atomic elements and the elementary radiations are all weaker reminiscent results from the formation of the Sun when it was formed by a much stronger nuclear E&M force in the galactic center.

Who of us two is it that don´t understand the principles of nucleosynthesis?

Um, that would be *you*.

Why is it that you´re taking *consensus atomic nuclei nucleosynthetic principles* to work differently in two different defined scientific areas? Are you too a victim of the consensus divisions of scientific branches?

Do you really think the E&M governed atomic nucleus knows how to work differently in different scientific branches all over from chemistry to biology and cosmology?

More nonsense.

Who of us two is it that don´t understand the universal principles of nucleosynthesis?

Again, that would be *you*.

Before and everytime you state me not to know and understand anything, you should ask yourself whether you and your frequently quoted convensus science really understand a scientific subject properly, consistently, logically, hence subsequently also universally.

Well, it is clear you do NOT understand even the basics here.

I really would strongly suggest taking some basic classes in physics and chemistry to learn how things really work as opposed to the fantasies you have spun here.

 

[gnostic]

As I understood him, he explained about the existence of the disparity and the fact that at this time, not one side or the other can reconcile it. Can you explain it?

As I have told you previously i am more of engineer than a physicist, so when it comes to modern physics, I am still learning, just like you.

Polymath257 have more experiences in maths and physics. @ecco and @ratiocinator, @exchemist, @Valjean, @shunyadragon and @Subduction Zone would also know more than I do in physics, although exchemist’s expertise is more in chemistry and shunyadragon if I remember correctly is more of a geologist by profession.

As I understand it ZPE is the lowest energy in vacuum, hence I preferred the term vacuum energy.

What you need to understand any vacuum, like in space is never truly empty or what you may refer it as “nothingness”. This vacuum energy is caused by quantum fluctuations of some sorts of wave-like fields.

If you want to know more than ask ecco, ratiocinator or @Polymath257.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

As I have told you previously i am more of engineer than a physicist, so when it comes to modern physics, I am still learning, just like you.

Polymath257 have more experiences in maths and physics. @ecco and @ratiocinator, @exchemist, @Valjean, @shunyadragon and @Subduction Zone would also know more than I do in physics, although exchemist’s expertise is more in chemistry and shunyadragon if I remember correctly is more of a geologist by profession.

As I understand it ZPE is the lowest energy in vacuum, hence I preferred the term vacuum energy.

What you need to understand any vacuum, like in space is never truly empty or what you may refer it as “nothingness”. This vacuum energy is caused by quantum fluctuations of some sorts of wave-like fields.

If you want to know more than ask ecco, ratiocinator or @Polymath257.

Whatever you do, don’t ask Native, because he is crank, and often he used sources that are bunch of woo cranks and conspiracy theorists.

And those wave like fields of ZPE involve energy at many different wavelengths, yes?

 

[gnostic]

And those wave like fields of ZPE involve energy at many different wavelengths, yes?

Energy don’t have wavelengths, Ben.

There are 2 things I know of that have wavelength:

• Electromagnetic waves or radiations
• Sound

Wavelengths are property of either EM radiations or sound waves, not the other way around.

Waves have energy.

Fields have energy.

Matters have energy.

Particles have energy.

Energy is a property of all of the above.

You are still confusing wave and energy, and wavelength and energy.

Energy is not a property of wave.

As to ZPE:

If I understand the concept correctly, the fields can be types of fields, not just EM fields.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Energy don’t have wavelengths, Ben.

There are 2 things I know of that have wavelength:

• Electromagnetic waves or radiations
• Sound

Waves have energy.

Fields have energy.

Matters have energy.

Particles have energy.

Energy is a property of all of the above.

You are still confusing wave and energy, and wavelength and energy.

Energy is not a property of wave.

As to ZPE:

If I understand the concept correctly, the fields can be types of fields, not just EM fields.

Please refer to my post above #1321. ZPE comprises em radiation energy. EM radiation energy must occur at a some frequency and thus has a wavelength.

 

[Native]

The second paragraph, containing your claims, was wrong. There is no such thing as 'biological nucleosynthesis'. The reason? Nothing in biology affects the nuclei of the atoms.

As a largely denier of E&M, I cant take your disconnected arguments seriously as your focus is on *gravitational particles* instead of on the atomic E&M properties which is working all over in all dimensions, including your good self.

 

[exchemist]

As I have told you previously i am more of engineer than a physicist, so when it comes to modern physics, I am still learning, just like you.

Polymath257 have more experiences in maths and physics. @ecco and @ratiocinator, @exchemist, @Valjean, @shunyadragon and @Subduction Zone would also know more than I do in physics, although exchemist’s expertise is more in chemistry and shunyadragon if I remember correctly is more of a geologist by profession.

As I understand it ZPE is the lowest energy in vacuum, hence I preferred the term vacuum energy.

What you need to understand any vacuum, like in space is never truly empty or what you may refer it as “nothingness”. This vacuum energy is caused by quantum fluctuations of some sorts of wave-like fields.

If you want to know more than ask ecco, ratiocinator or @Polymath257.

Whatever you do, don’t ask Native, because he is crank, and often he used sources that are bunch of woo cranks and conspiracy theorists.

You're right, I'm just a chemist, so what I know of this is what chemists need to know abut QM.

Actually zero point energy is a far more widespread phenomenon than just the vacuum. In QM, any quantised system has a ground state. In many cases, the ground state still has some energy. That energy is the zero point energy of the system. So for instance in the the ground state of the hydrogen atom, the electron is still in motion and is still apart from the nucleus, so it has both kinetic and potential energy. There is no way to get a hydrogen atom into a lower energy state than this, so this is zero point energy. Similarly, in the lowest vibrational state of molecules, there is still some motion left, even at absolute zero. This is why it is called "zero point" energy: it refers to what is left even at absolute zero.

You can regard zero point energy either as the lowest frequency standing wave associated with the system, or as a manifestation of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, according to which the position and momentum of the system cannot both be simultaneously defined exactly.

The zero point energy of the vacuum is a special case of ZPE, arising I think from the evolution of QM into Quantum Field Theory. But not being a physicist, I don't know QFT, so all I know is a rough outline of vacuum ZPE - very much as you have described it.

One point I think is important when discussing the vacuum ZPE is to distinguish between photons and virtual photons. It is the latter that are said to pop into and out of existence. Nobody suggests actual, real photons are flying around, since if there were we would detect them. Virtual photons, on the other hand are random disturbances in the EM field that have a number of similar mathematical properties to photons. But they aren't real photons. There is an excellent article on this by Matt Strassler here, which I found very helpful in resolving the potential confusion: Virtual Particles: What are they?

But the last 2 paras are on the edge of my knowledge, so any passing real physicist may care to correct me.

 

[Native]

One point I think is important when discussing the vacuum ZPE is to distinguish between photons and virtual photons. It is the latter that are said to pop into and out of existence. Nobody suggests actual, real photons are flying around, since if there were we would detect them. Virtual photons, on the other hand are random disturbances in the EM field that have a number of similar mathematical properties to photons. But they aren't real photons.

I agree in all this. The *uncertainty problem* derives from taking E&M frequensies as *particles*. There is no such thing as a *photon* or even a *graviton* for that matter.

 

[Polymath257]

Energy don’t have wavelengths, Ben.

There are 2 things I know of that have wavelength:

• Electromagnetic waves or radiations
• Sound

Wavelengths are property of either EM radiations or sound waves, not the other way around.

Waves have energy.

Fields have energy.

Matters have energy.

Particles have energy.

Energy is a property of all of the above.

You are still confusing wave and energy, and wavelength and energy.

Energy is not a property of wave.

As to ZPE:

If I understand the concept correctly, the fields can be types of fields, not just EM fields.

I'm going to step in here. In quantum mechanics, ALL particles are described by waves and have a wavelength that depends on their momentum. Conversely, every wave has an associated 'particle'. That for sound is known as a phonon. Phonons are not fundamental particles, but only arise when there is vibration in some macroscopic medium.

So, electrons have a wavelength, which is one reason electron microscopes are possible.

Next, ALL particles have energy as well as momentum. And energy along with the three components of momentum go together to form what is known as the energy-momentum four-vector.

So, we have

energy+momentum <---> particles <---> waves

The zero point energy is the smallest amount of energy possible in a system. In classical mechanics, this was zero. But it is not in quantum mechanics. It corresponds to the state that has a single photon of the longest allowed wavelength.

Why are some wavelengths allowed and not others? Resonance. if you have a container, only certain wavelengths will 'fit nicely' into that container. Others end up cancelling themselves out.

So, again, the zero point energy is that where only one particle of longest wavelength (lowest energy) exists in the container.

Since energy decreases with the wavelength of the particle, the ZPE of a large system is smaller than that of a smaller system. This difference in energy is what produces the Casimir effect.

And, again, in large systems, the ZPE is low because large wavelength particles have low energy. The resulting force is *very* small for macroscopic distances. It is certainly NOT enough to describe the gravitational force.

 

[Polymath257]

I agree in all this. The *uncertainty problem* derives from taking E&M frequensies as *particles*. There is no such thing as a *photon* or even a *graviton* for that matter.

Funny how we have actually detected photons in many ways. We can even turn down some lasers to the point they emit one photon at a time.

 

[Native]

In quantum mechanics, ALL particles are described by waves and have a wavelength that depends on their momentum. Conversely, every wave has an associated 'particle'. That for sound is known as a phonon. Phonons are not fundamental particles, but only arise when there is vibration in some macroscopic medium.

Native said: ↑
I agree in all this. The *uncertainty problem* derives from taking E&M frequensies as *particles*. There is no such thing as a *photon* or even a *graviton* for that matter.

Funny how we have actually detected photons in many ways. We can even turn down some lasers to the point they emit one photon at a time.

It would be nice if you could come to agreement with yourself instead of being opposite just for the fun of it.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I'm going to step in here. In quantum mechanics, ALL particles are described by waves and have a wavelength that depends on their momentum. Conversely, every wave has an associated 'particle'. That for sound is known as a phonon. Phonons are not fundamental particles, but only arise when there is vibration in some macroscopic medium.

So, electrons have a wavelength, which is one reason electron microscopes are possible.

Next, ALL particles have energy as well as momentum. And energy along with the three components of momentum go together to form what is known as the energy-momentum four-vector.

So, we have

energy+momentum <---> particles <---> waves

The zero point energy is the smallest amount of energy possible in a system. In classical mechanics, this was zero. But it is not in quantum mechanics. It corresponds to the state that has a single photon of the longest allowed wavelength.

Why are some wavelengths allowed and not others? Resonance. if you have a container, only certain wavelengths will 'fit nicely' into that container. Others end up cancelling themselves out.

So, again, the zero point energy is that where only one particle of longest wavelength (lowest energy) exists in the container.

Since energy decreases with the wavelength of the particle, the ZPE of a large system is smaller than that of a smaller system. This difference in energy is what produces the Casimir effect.

And, again, in large systems, the ZPE is low because large wavelength particles have low energy. The resulting force is *very* small for macroscopic distances. It is certainly NOT enough to describe the gravitational force.

Very informative Polymath, as always I do appreciate your understanding on these matters as I am interested in learning.

 

[Polymath257]

Native said: ↑
I agree in all this. The *uncertainty problem* derives from taking E&M frequensies as *particles*. There is no such thing as a *photon* or even a *graviton* for that matter.

It would be nice if you could come to agreement with yourself instead of being opposite just for the fun of it.

How do you think I have been in disagreement with myself?

 

[gnostic]

Actually zero point energy is a far more widespread phenomenon than just the vacuum. In QM, any quantised system has a ground state. In many cases, the ground state still has some energy. That energy is the zero point energy of the system. So for instance in the the ground state of the hydrogen atom, the electron is still in motion and is still apart from the nucleus, so it has both kinetic and potential energy. There is no way to get a hydrogen atom into a lower energy state than this, so this is zero point energy. Similarly, in the lowest vibrational state of molecules, there is still some motion left, even at absolute zero. This is why it is called "zero point" energy: it refers to what is left even at absolute zero.

You can regard zero point energy either as the lowest frequency standing wave associated with the system, or as a manifestation of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, according to which the position and momentum of the system cannot both be simultaneously defined exactly.

The zero point energy of the vacuum is a special case of ZPE, arising I think from the evolution of QM into Quantum Field Theory. But not being a physicist, I don't know QFT, so all I know is a rough outline of vacuum ZPE - very much as you have described it.

One point I think is important when discussing the vacuum ZPE is to distinguish between photons and virtual photons. It is the latter that are said to pop into and out of existence. Nobody suggests actual, real photons are flying around, since if there were we would detect them. Virtual photons, on the other hand are random disturbances in the EM field that have a number of similar mathematical properties to photons. But they aren't real photons. There is an excellent article on this by Matt Strassler here, which I found very helpful in resolving the potential confusion: Virtual Particles: What are they?

But the last 2 paras are on the edge of my knowledge, so any passing real physicist may care to correct me.

I'm going to step in here. In quantum mechanics, ALL particles are described by waves and have a wavelength that depends on their momentum. Conversely, every wave has an associated 'particle'. That for sound is known as a phonon. Phonons are not fundamental particles, but only arise when there is vibration in some macroscopic medium.

So, electrons have a wavelength, which is one reason electron microscopes are possible.

Next, ALL particles have energy as well as momentum. And energy along with the three components of momentum go together to form what is known as the energy-momentum four-vector.

So, we have

energy+momentum <---> particles <---> waves

The zero point energy is the smallest amount of energy possible in a system. In classical mechanics, this was zero. But it is not in quantum mechanics. It corresponds to the state that has a single photon of the longest allowed wavelength.

Why are some wavelengths allowed and not others? Resonance. if you have a container, only certain wavelengths will 'fit nicely' into that container. Others end up cancelling themselves out.

So, again, the zero point energy is that where only one particle of longest wavelength (lowest energy) exists in the container.

Since energy decreases with the wavelength of the particle, the ZPE of a large system is smaller than that of a smaller system. This difference in energy is what produces the Casimir effect.

And, again, in large systems, the ZPE is low because large wavelength particles have low energy. The resulting force is *very* small for macroscopic distances. It is certainly NOT enough to describe the gravitational force.

Thank you both.

I will try to remember them.

 

[gnostic]

You're right, I'm just a chemist, so what I know of this is what chemists need to know abut QM.

Chemist or not, from reading your past posts, I could tell you have better understanding of quantum mechanics than I do.

It is why I have included you among the members for Ben to ask physics questions that I haven’t fully grasped yet. And that’s including field theory and ZPE.

 

[exchemist]

Chemist or not, from reading your past posts, I could tell you have better understanding of quantum mechanics than I do.

It is why I have included you among the members for Ben to ask physics questions that I haven’t fully grasped yet. And that’s including field theory and ZPE.

Yes chemists have to do a fair amount of what you might call "standard" QM, since it accounts for everything from the Periodic Table to the various types of chemical bonding, and other interactions such as London forces, plus all the spectroscopy we routinely use - and plenty more. But we don't need QFT, Feynman diagrams etc, so for that I have to defer to physicists.

There is some good stuff in this thread - for one thing, I pick up nuggets from time to time from @Polymath257 - so thanks for keeping me in the loop.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

This from a paper by Peter W. Milonni

The zero-point energy density of the vacuum, due to all quantum fields, is extremely large, even when we cut off the largest allowable frequencies based on plausible physical arguments. It implies a cosmological constant larger than the limits imposed by observation by about 120 orders of magnitude.

Link.. Zero-Point Energy

So can someone tell me what it means when it is said, "even when we cut off the largest allowable frequencies based on plausible physical arguments"?

 

[exchemist]

This from a paper by Peter W. Milonni


Link.. Zero-Point Energy

So can someone tell me what it means when it is said, "even when we cut off the largest allowable frequencies based on plausible physical arguments"?

This will have to be a bit of a guess but I presume the argument is that one does not have to consider the full range of frequencies extending to infinity, which would lead to an infinite result. There are some reasons to think current physics cannot be extrapolated to distance shorter than the Planck length, for instance, so I would hazard a guess that maybe there is an argument that wavelengths shorter than this can be neglected, or something.