A Thought Experiment and a Question

He's confusing things. I showed him a proof a long time ago that a point on the equator of a sphere with radius equal to the Compton wavelength of the electron is moving with a velocity that is like $$c/\alpha$$ where alpha is the fine structure constant.

Needless to say, this assumes that the electron is an extended body. This is how we know the classical interpretation of ``spin'' is wrong, and that the electron is, in fact, a quantum object.

gluon---

You haven't answered my questions in post #12.
 
BenTheMan said:
How does this work? Can you calculate the pressure? What does it mean?

If you can't answer these questions, this thread cannot remain here. You've made some random analogy that you can't support with reasoning or with calculations. All you seem to be able to do is appeal to authority.
Click to expand...

Well, the Reynolds-Number would hold a particular role perhaps; or maybe even the structure of Reynolds-Number would hold some essential key to it all. For instance, a system with a velocity can have a relationship with density given as:

$$R_e=\frac{\rho vR^2}{\mu}$$

Of course, i would imagine that we could only approximate the given force of density on the surface area of a particle, indeed if it has one.
 
As a quick sidenote, i have a problem with the non-dimensionsionality of ''pointlike'' systems. I find it hard to visualize non-dimensional objects making up the three dimensional world of today... but that's just my problem. I think we measure the length of dimensions, and find an infinitesimal length called the Planck Space, but this isn't to mean that we cannot go smaller; we already are hypothesizing solitonic matter, matter existing beyond the threshold of Planck Scales.

So that might give us some room, so to speak, to add a little volume, and thus a tiny bit of surface area too, with particles. We simply don't have the technology yet to find an area, or volume, to let's say the electron, but it doesn't mean it can't have one.
 
The Planck length is not infinitesimal. Nor is it the point where any and all physics is meaningless. It is the length at which gravity is no longer an ignorable quantum force and so anything which neglects gravity will be unable to give valid answers when you get down the the Planck length. I can give you string vacua which have compact spaces smaller than the Planck length in radius, but it would only be a supergravity approximation, where the equations used to find the solution assume that the cycle sizes are larger than a Planck length (though T duality screws that up anyway).

And I've told you many times before solitons are not defined to be sub-Planck length objects!. Solitons are non-dispersive, they remain localised in space for all time. The first observation of a soliton was a wave coming off the bow of a boat. It solitons were sub-Planck length phenomena that would not be possible.
 
AlphaNumeric said:
The Planck length is not infinitesimal. Nor is it the point where any and all physics is meaningless. It is the length at which gravity is no longer an ignorable quantum force and so anything which neglects gravity will be unable to give valid answers when you get down the the Planck length. I can give you string vacua which have compact spaces smaller than the Planck length in radius, but it would only be a supergravity approximation, where the equations used to find the solution assume that the cycle sizes are larger than a Planck length (though T duality screws that up anyway).

And I've told you many times before solitons are not defined to be sub-Planck length objects!. Solitons are non-dispersive, they remain localised in space for all time. The first observation of a soliton was a wave coming off the bow of a boat. It solitons were sub-Planck length phenomena that would not be possible.
Click to expand...

The planck length has been described many times as being the scale where ''infinitesimal particle sizes'' exist. Nevertheless, my point holds. So far we have particles arising in box of $$10^{-33}$$ in a time of $$10^{44}$$, and therefore, we don't really have any theories of objects existing below the Planck Threshold, apart from solitonic wave-matter.
 
gluon said:
The planck length has been described many times as being the scale where ''infinitesimal particle sizes'' exist.
Click to expand...
Where and by whom? As my post said and as you well know Reiku, I can give explicit examples of various mainstream models which work at or around the Planck length. Supergravity solutions to the requirements of N=1 vacua need the moduli to have values larger than 1 so that the effect gravity has on the quantum scale is neglectible (ironic for something called supergravity). The Planck length is the length obtained when you combine h, c and G in such a way to get a quantity which has dimensions of length. Nothing to do with 'infinitesimal particles'. The Planck length has been known about for more than 100 years. It's as old as quantum mechanics. Just as ~eV scale gives us electromagnetic phenomena (the ionisaton energy of the H atom is 13.6eV if memory serves), ~100MeV scale is the strong force ($$\Lambda_{QCD}$$ ~ 134MeV) and ~100GeV is the weak scale (which equates to distances of about $$10^{-18}m$$) the Planck length is another name for the quantum gravity length or scale. When it was derived we had no clue about the nature of the atom or particles. We had only just discovered the electron!

Why, oh why, oh why do you stick your neck out too far each and every time you post? You were wrong about the Planck length and solitons and you know you're wrong and you know I'm more familiar with them than you but still you can't just say "I was wrong".
gluon said:
we don't really have any theories of objects existing below the Planck Threshold, apart from solitonic wave-matter.
Click to expand...
Firstly, even if that were the case that does not mean 'solitonic' is synonymous with 'sub-Planck scale', given soliton solutions appear in pretty much any differential equations based theory you'd case to name (I'm not too up to speed on them but I know Euler is, though he's not posting much anywhere anymore). Secondly, you don't know what current theories are anyway and given you clearly don't listen to people who might (ie myself or Ben, both of us work in Sugra), I suggest you wind your neck in again.
 
BenTheMan said:
Can you calculate the pressure?
Click to expand...

From a little work, and a little time involving some research and calculations, it would seem not only could you derive a drag force of a particle through a fluidic like system (i.e. the vacuum) with the followig equation, but also derive the pressure exerted on the surface area of the system, knowing the relationships between pressure and density, then we could have:

$$F_d\frac{1}{2}atv=\frac{1}{2}\rho Au^2 f_c(R_e) \frac{v}{t}\frac{1}{2}at^2 C_d$$.

This is the famous drag equation, with only one tweak i made, and that was by applying the dimensions $$ad$$ or acceleration times distance making a vector product i was allowing to leave in the equation, because we may (by the choice of whoever desires to look for the following), want to calculate a total density over some given distance, and then integrate it with respect to velocity. However, mocing on, one also knows these dimensions are not necesserily needed, so it can reduce to:

$$F_d=\frac{1}{2}\rho Au^2 f_c(R_e) C_d$$

The importance of this equation, is that it take into respects the main conditions scientists believe causes the friction, even though, last time i checked, any drag equation has a flaw that hasn't been rectified, and that being all the natures of whatever causes drag is not fully understood. $$C_g$$ is the drag coefficient, which i am sure our resident physicist Ben has heard of, as it measures the drag of a system mathematically, and can be applied as a dimensionaless figure. $$A$$ is the surface area of the object, and $$u^2$$ is the speed, which then $$\rho$$, which is the density of the surrounding system of the said object (Again, knowing the relationships behind pressure and density - i am happy to matehmatically show these relationships) in which again, this specific energy density within the current logical assumptions i feel i have made so far, would then be nothing but the general density of the virtual particles in the vacuum, or the vacuum density for short. So here we are using the equation to calculate the drag force $$F_d$$ of a system moving through the density of the vacuum, with an exerted force in the direction of a vector.
 
Last edited:
munty13 said:
"I now speculate the nature of spacetime, and treat it as being fluidlike; in many ways it is fluidic, as matter distorts spacetime round it and drag it with it, much like the viscosity of water drag. I wonder about a particle being being akin to a system submerged in a dense fluidlike system, where the particle is affected by a pressure exerted on it equally because of the energy density of the vacuum."

What would be your thoughts on replacing spacetime with that old-chestnut aether? Some scientists (unfortunately labelled for the most part crackpots) believe aether to be the vacuum energy. Of course, this might be asking a bit much, unless you're willing to question whether it's possible that time does not exist. If you are, then the aether quite easily fills the boots of spacetime.
Click to expand...

You might be surprised to learn that physics can no longer operate without what is called, ''a quantum aether,'' which is analogous to the background temperature (in a homogeneous sense), and closely related, if not somehow the same as the cosmological value of energy density.

So physics is unthinkable without the quantum aether, as much as Einstein once postulated that relativity is unthinkable without the lumineferous aether.
 
More analytically and formally related to the reasonable assumptions I have made on whether the electron has a surface area (albeit as small as it would be), and also assuming a classical view that it would have an area that would move in a given direction, I calculate the following:

$$\vec{F}=\sum P \vec{n}A=\delta \vec{Pn} d A$$

So if an electron, indeed all particles have a surface area, and if the laws of physics concerning the energy density of the universe does indeed interact with the momentum of quantum objects, the force of pressure exerted on the system will exist as it moves through it, and ‘’ploughs’’ through it with a force of drag.
 
gluon said:
You might be surprised to learn that physics can no longer operate without what is called, ''a quantum aether,'' which is analogous to the background temperature (in a homogeneous sense), and closely related, if not somehow the same as the cosmological value of energy density.
Click to expand...

Are you pulling this from a source or is that an opinion?
 
gluon, two things:

One, you're just throwing formulae up and hoping I buy a few of them, much like throwing spaghetti against a wall and hoping it will stick. I have no idea what your variables mean, and therefore this is meaningless. My guess is that you copied these equations from Wikipedia.

Two, in some sense, one can interpret a quantum field as an aether, however, in no sense is this aether like the one that people invoked 100 years ago. The quantum field has no reference frame, and is not detectable except by possibly Casimir type setups. Also in no sense can we replace space-time with a quantum field, as we do not yet understand quantum gravity.
 
BenTheMan said:
gluon, two things:

One, you're just throwing formulae up and hoping I buy a few of them, much like throwing spaghetti against a wall and hoping it will stick. I have no idea what your variables mean, and therefore this is meaningless. My guess is that you copied these equations from Wikipedia.

Two, in some sense, one can interpret a quantum field as an aether, however, in no sense is this aether like the one that people invoked 100 years ago. The quantum field has no reference frame, and is not detectable except by possibly Casimir type setups. Also in no sense can we replace space-time with a quantum field, as we do not yet understand quantum gravity.
Click to expand...

I'm not actually. The first equation only has one tweak in it - i admit, but there was a reason for that. The second equation is perfectly normal drag equation.
 
BenTheMan said:
Two, in some sense, one can interpret a quantum field as an aether, however, in no sense is this aether like the one that people invoked 100 years ago. The quantum field has no reference frame, and is not detectable except by possibly Casimir type setups. Also in no sense can we replace space-time with a quantum field, as we do not yet understand quantum gravity.
Click to expand...

True, but i fail to see the relevence.
 
If you replace the fluid of spacetime with the aether, you really have something.

What if light from the Sun does not take 8 or so minutes to reach us? What if the light from the Sun travelled at such a high velocity it reaches us in an instant? I was thinking that would give it a frequency in the EMR range of about 0.002 Hz.

Then imagine all the light from the all the stars that are also in a circuit with the Earth. It's not simply millions of miles now .... but billions. I wonder what these frequencies would be like?

Put all these ingredients together and you've got a very fast, and very dense fluid - the aether.
 
“ Originally Posted by gluon
Ben, please be a bit more reasonable. I never really created either equation, but both are real drag equations. ”

So does "after a lot of research and calculation" mean "I spent 20 minutes on wikipedia"? If you understand the equations you're posting, then why don't you explain them? Just throwing up a bunch of variables isn't going to impress anyone, except the types of people who are typically impressed by posts like yours.

......................................

This was a reply to Ben, and i make a public apology. I must admit, reading many materials without explanation into the variables (as you will find a lot in the obtuse mathematical arxiv papers. I hope ben has compassion and puts the thread back for my unclearness, if i fix it now. Hold on,
 
gluon said:
More analytically and formally related to the reasonable assumptions I have made on whether the electron has a surface area (albeit as small as it would be), and also assuming a classical view that it would have an area that would move in a given direction, I calculate the following:

$$\vec{F}=\sum P \vec{n}A=\delta \vec{Pn} d A$$

So if an electron, indeed all particles have a surface area, and if the laws of physics concerning the energy density of the universe does indeed interact with the momentum of quantum objects, the force of pressure exerted on the system will exist as it moves through it, and ‘’ploughs’’ through it with a force of drag.
Click to expand...


This equation is generally used (i think) by aeronautical engineers) - whilst the equation from my understanding can also be used to represent the drag force in a particular directionality (i.e a mathematical vector), and thus $$P$$ is for pressure, and $$A$$ is the surface area of the object. In this instance, we assume the object is quantum by nature, and by the speculation Ben allowed me to make previously, could have surface area. Indeed, the right hand side is differential.
 
$$F_d\frac{1}{2}atv=\frac{1}{2}\rho Au^2 f_c(R_e) \frac{v}{t}\frac{1}{2}at^2 C_d$$.

This is the famous drag equation, with only one tweak i made, and that was by applying the dimensions $$ad$$ or acceleration times distance making a vector product i was allowing to leave in the equation, because we may (by the choice of whoever desires to look for the following), want to calculate a total density over some given distance, and then integrate it with respect to velocity. However, mocing on, one also knows these dimensions are not necesserily needed, so it can reduce to:

$$F_d=\frac{1}{2}\rho Au^2 f_c(R_e) C_d$$

The importance of this equation, is that it take into respects the main conditions scientists believe causes the friction, even though, last time i checked, any drag equation has a flaw that hasn't been rectified, and that being all the natures of whatever causes drag is not fully understood. $$C_g$$ is the drag coefficient, which i am sure our resident physicist Ben has heard of, as it measures the drag of a system mathematically, and can be applied as a dimensionaless figure. $$A$$ is the surface area of the object, and $$u^2$$ is the speed, which then $$\rho$$, which is the density of the surrounding system of the said object (Again, knowing the relationships behind pressure and density - i am happy to matehmatically show these relationships) in which again, this specific energy density within the current logical assumptions i feel i have made so far, would then be nothing but the general density of the virtual particles in the vacuum, or the vacuum density for short. So here we are using the equation to calculate the drag force $$F_d$$ of a system moving through the density of the vacuum, with an exerted force in the direction of a vector.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top