So now you are stating that pair production in the vacuum is pseudoscience.
I think you have it backwards, Ben. I see no evidence to support string theory. You 'believe' in string theory with no evidence to support the theory and with no predictions to confirm or falsify the theory. You are closer to occupying the same moral ground as the intelligent designers, etc.
You must be residing in a fantasy land. I reject any theory that does not display solid logic and have good experimental backing.
How about Hawking-Unruh radiation?
ok
cutiing edge physics in pseudo
homework help in phys
well done, dumbfuck sci
I never argued that the Dirac sea was a complete and accurate description of the vacuum. Einstein, Dirac and others recognized that the 'Dirac sea', which is a hypothesis that predicted the existence of the positron, was a signature of an underlying aether in the vacuum. I said that it was not possible to detect our motion through the aether, by means of Earth surface-based experiments, any more easily than we could detect our motion through the Dirac sea or the Dark Energy in the vacuum. I think the observed and measured effects that some attempt to describe as Dark Energy, zero point energy, the Dirac sea, vacuum foam or whatever are all signatures of an aether-like background in spacetime. I really don't care if it is called 'aether', Dark Energy, vacuum energy, Dirac sea or whatever. They are all just bits and pieces of the larger puzzle, IMO.I am stating exactly that pair production from the vacuum doesn't mean there is a Dirac sea. One can also produce quark-anti-quark pairs from the vacuum. Should there also be a quark sea as well?
Ahh, I did not state Hawking radiation, I said Hawking-Unruh radiation. I am still skeptical of both forms of Hawking radiation. Here is a little cut & paste and link regarding Hawking-Unruh radiation:Show me an experiment where you detect Hawking radiation
http://physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/accel/unruhrad.pdfAt present, Unruh radiation for uniformly accelerated motion exists only as a theoretical
concept, not yet confirmed in the laboratory. Experimental evidence for Hawking-Unruh
effects does exist for uniform circular motion, as mentioned in the Introduction.
I said that it was not possible to detect our motion through the aether, by means of Earth surface-based experiments, any more easily than we could detect our motion through the Dirac sea or the Dark Energy in the vacuum.
I think the observed and measured effects that some attempt to describe as Dark Energy, zero point energy, the Dirac sea, vacuum foam or whatever are all signatures of an aether-like background in spacetime. I really don't care if it is called 'aether', Dark Energy, vacuum energy, Dirac sea or whatever. They are all just bits and pieces of the larger puzzle, IMO.
I am still skeptical of both forms of Hawking radiation. Here is a little cut & paste and link regarding Hawking-Unruh radiation:
The Hawking-Unruh temperature ¯nds application in accelerator physics as the reason that electrons in a storage ring do not reach 100% polarization despite emitting polarized synchrotron radiation [4]. Indeed, the various limiting features of performance of a storage ring that arise due to quantum °uctuations of the synchrotron radiation [5] can be understood quickly in terms of eq. (2) [6, 7].
Don't be such an ass. I said we can observe and measure the effects. We can observe and measure the effects of gravity, but we have never detected a graviton or a gravitational wave, have we? We know gravity exists, but we still don't know exactly what it is.So you can't detect it? Then how do you measure it?
Read my post again, Ben, and try to be honest in your arguments. I never stated the Dirac sea was the same as the aether.If your aether is the same as a Dirac sea, then surely it is wrong
ben is a troll
benthetroll's mantra is...if it cannot be measured it aint physics
Read my post again, Ben, and try to be honest in your arguments. I never stated the Dirac sea was the same as the aether.
I think the observed and measured effects that some attempt to describe as Dark Energy, zero point energy, the Dirac sea, vacuum foam or whatever are all signatures of an aether-like background in spacetime.
...or virtual photons, or quantum foam or zero point energy. Too much denominations to single phenomena, don't you think? How do you want to explain for example the dispersion of gamma radiation detected by MAGIC experiment? The dilatation of iridium meter prototype?you call something an aether, I call it a cosmological constant, or dark energy
BenTheMan,
I never argued that the Dirac sea was a complete and accurate description of the vacuum. Einstein, Dirac and others recognized that the 'Dirac sea', which is a hypothesis that predicted the existence of the positron, was a signature of an underlying aether in the vacuum. I said that it was not possible to detect our motion through the aether, by means of Earth surface-based experiments, any more easily than we could detect our motion through the Dirac sea or the Dark Energy in the vacuum. I think the observed and measured effects that some attempt to describe as Dark Energy, zero point energy, the Dirac sea, vacuum foam or whatever are all signatures of an aether-like background in spacetime. I really don't care if it is called 'aether', Dark Energy, vacuum energy, Dirac sea or whatever. They are all just bits and pieces of the larger puzzle, IMO.
Ahh, I did not state Hawking radiation, I said Hawking-Unruh radiation. I am still skeptical of both forms of Hawking radiation. Here is a little cut & paste and link regarding Hawking-Unruh radiation:
http://physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/accel/unruhrad.pdf
Has the Casimir effect been discussed yet? Frame-dragging around a rotating BH?
What does anyone think about the first one?
Also, we perceive time as linear (here on planet Earth, anyway), but where is the line it 'moves' along?
I view time as something monotonic, but 3-d, like spatiality. In fact, time is orthogonal to any change in distance (separation). It aint' one-dimensional, but it is monotonic in a given inertial field.