Pressure Harvesting - from ocean depths
- Thread starter Quantum Quack
- Start date
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
I've tried to read some more on this. I think the key to bringing the two models together seems to be Lifshitz, who seems to have developed a model (involving to me incomprehensible mathematics) that reduces to London dispersion forces at small separations and the Casimir force at (relatively) large separations. The QED treatment is all about how the boundary conditions imposed by the plates alter the vacuum EM zero point field. These are determined by the dielectric properties of the plates, which are due....... to the polarisability of the electron clouds of their constituent atoms.
So what we may have is one approach treating the dielectric as a constant bulk property and considering uncertainty-driven fluctuations in the vacuum field, while the other considers uncertainty-driven correlated fluctuations in the dipole moments of the atoms, acting across space through a classical EM field. And both give the same answer.
I need to think more about this, but it looks as if the two are (pace breathless pop-sci stuff about vacuum energy) well-known to be equivalent. Lifshitz did his work in the 1950s.
There is a presentation I found from some prof. in Ljubljana which I can't follow in detail but gives an idea: http://www-f1.ijs.si/~rudi/lectures/casimir.pdf
Sorry but all I see there is throwing disparate concepts into a concrete mixer and expecting anything but a mess to come back out.
They are still quite distinct source phenomena. Again, if both are valid, they should independently add. But that doesn't work.
Tried to follow everything in that article but in the end gave up trying to get a clear distinction. I found Jaffe's treatment much clearer in that respect. His easy to follow conclusion is unambiguous except for enigmatically implying ZPE fluctuations should be there even if there is no evidence they physically contribute to anything measurable!
Well perhaps you might like to describe how time and distance are impacted when E=0
It really isn't that hard to grasp.
E= mc^2 says most of it...
when E = 0 what does mc^2 equal?
Obvious yes?
Nothing disparate about it...
Maybe it is just too simple...
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Yes that's rather how it seems to me, I confess. I'll take a look at Jaffe's paper.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
E=mc^2 equates energy to mass. What does that have to do with time and distance or any of the rest of your word salad?
I am really surprised that you have to ask, but then again I guess it is no surprise. What is a surprise is that Q-reeus actually liked your post thus validating your willful ignorance and insult.
I don't usually read your posts as you are on ignore but this I may take exception. (Received in an email notification)
Perhaps you need to get down to basics and even though you may have more learning in physic than I, it is obvious you have little understanding of what you have learned.
For mass to exist it must have dimensions greater than zero. (d= >0) a simple fact.
For c to exist it must have time and distance. t=>0, d= >0 A simple fact.
If Energy is zero neither mass, nor distance nor time exists. A simple fact.
So it is easy to claim that time and energy are directly related.
It is even speculated that the universe had a finite time remaining, some say 6 billion years some say other... no potential = no future. (time)
But where it gets interesting is when you consider the physic behind a vacant space and how matter with it's inherent energy, duration ( time) and mass, can emerge and be sustained from what appears to be nothing...
The ex-nihil0 problem gets closer to a solution.
If you do not know what ex-nihilo means google it and find out.
Last edited:
Trivially true.
Again trivially true. But in E = mc^2, c is merely a required conversion factor.
Energy of what? An arbitrarily tiny speck of matter under consideration, or say the entire universe? You leave that totally undefined.
Maybe. Depends entirely on the physical system in question. If that is never defined, neither is any relevant linkage between energy and time.
Throwing in speculation about what I will guess actually refers to claimed Higgs field metastability is just more derailing side tracking of your own thread. If that phase transition happens, it would not mean total annihilation but transition to a presumed 'true vacuum' having different physical constants.
[Not worth commenting on your later additions to post]
I was under the impression that every one realized that E=mc^2 has universal application. I was mistaken... yet again..
see above...
no, it was further support to the notion that energy is time. Why do you assume that I had another agenda?
As interesting as the Higgs is, I am not attempting to discuss it in a forum such as this one where simple truths take ages to get across and some members are too quick to draw insulting conclusions.
At this stage the idea was about establishing the principle more so than the practicability.While fascinating and potentially worthwhile, this sounds very expensive, QQ!If we could manage this, would it be cost efficient?
There are probably many ways to capitalize on the extreme pressures available. ( ie. chemical reactions that require high pressure etc, metals and crystals that exhibit certain reactions when at depth etc)
but really it is just teasing the imagination with a little sci fi possibility.
Yes you are mistaken but not in the way you think. See here for the correct 'universal' version:
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-full-version-of-e-mc2-and-how-do-you-find-p?share=1
??? The relevant passage again:
"It is even speculated that the universe had a finite time remaining, some say 6 billion years some say other... no potential = no future. (time)"
So link to exactly where that notion comes from and what it 'really' refers to if not Higgs field metastability.
I think you are unnecessarily adding complexity to the issue.
If momentum is included or E is squared then how does it effect my position? It doesn't. Simply because the 0^2 = 0 ( another simple truth)
try again...
btw I think the wiki does a reasonable job of it all:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass–energy_equivalence
I read it somewhere "Multi verse theorists". The point being is that thermal equilibrium is considered inevitable. Therefore the universes capacity to do work (E) determines how much time it has to exist.
Energy = Time
Last edited:
Why bother given that reaction.
Sure, go down to sub section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass–energy_equivalence#Extension_for_systems_in_motion
No weaseling out I'm afraid.
Wrong again. Majority of cosmologists think the universe will last forever, certainly far beyond it's 'heat death'. Roger Penrose's speculative CCC is an exception, but even there, the renewal time scale is vastly greater than a mere 6 billion years. Low mass stars for instance will continue to shine for trillions of years. Then there is supposed BH 'evaporation' which is on a vastly longer time scale. Then there are further quantum processes on still far larger time scales.
See how far you get with that profoundly wrong identity at any other (science based) forum. Please do give it a long break here.
easy to...
Given the context of the discussion momentum or not is irrelevant.
Or perhaps you could show why it is relevant to the issue at hand?
Your line from #631 again:
"I was under the impression that every one realized that E=mc^2 has universal application. I was mistaken... yet again.."
Yes, you were mistaken, as I pointed out. Why not graciously accept that? I'd say because of the E word (no not energy).
Because I am not...
Read the second paragraph in the wiki...
and E^2 to you too.... lol
E=mc^2 refers to rest mass. or invariant mass.
The rest mass is a fundamental physical property that remains independent of momentum, even at extreme speeds approaching the speed of light (i.e., its value is the same in all inertial frames of reference).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass–energy_equivalence
How universal do you want it to be...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass–energy_equivalence
Impasse. How about we agree to terminate this latest fork and assess what progress if any has been achieved towards 'Pressure Harvesting - from ocean depths', after ~ 8 months and 32 pages to date.
Has there been a single truly viable idea turned up consistent with thread title?
Has there been a single truly viable idea turned up consistent with thread title?