Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular
Slowed By the Vacuum
focus.aps.org — In the 26 May PRL researchers propose an experiment to detect "friction" in the quantum vacuum, the effect of virtual particles on vibrating objects.If successful, it would demonstrate that virtual particles are not just convenient theoretical constructs.
timewarrior- 398 diggs
- digg it
- DavidtheDuke, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Why call them virtual particles then?
- Llan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Because they start and end in the Feynman graph, meaning they appear out of nothing, which contradicts energy conservation (but is allowed in Heisenberg uncertainty time steps).
- scott1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Because they are particles that cannot be dected but there prence can be dected by the effect they have on other particles.
- MrPhelps, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8It's already been proven : put two parallel plates close to each other and they will seem attracted towards each other because of the pressure of "virtual" particles outside the plates. It's called the Casimir effect.
- Llan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Maybe you should try to read the article or at least scan it before commenting.
- emiles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7The article does indeed mention the Casimir effect. Why does the abstract above act like this is some new proof of virtual particles when the article says no such thing (and as MrPhelps points out it is already proven)?
- Cyberdad, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4McPhelps is right. Here's an article I wrote on the Casimir effect:
http://www.smartalix.com/casimir.htm
- MioTheGreat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Didn't McKay do something like this and blow up an entire solar system?
- phreakout, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5The Quantum Vacuum is Lorentz Invariant. When moving through it at a constant speed it is homogenous. It only produces 'drag' when something accelerates through it. Haisch and Rueda have some great papers on how the electromagnetic 'drag' of the quanttum vacuum particles on an accelerating body could explain inertial mass (and perhaps gravity). They are theorists though and its really great to see some quantuum vacuum or zero point field experiments. look on arxiv for papers by them. Arthur C Clarke has named his SHARP ftl space drive after them.
- angryredplanet, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Sorry phreakout, I meant to click the +digg button and *somehow* missed and clicked -digg instead. I agree with what you say though.
- sanman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Not only could Quantum Vacuum explain inertia and gravity, but it would explain deBroglie wavelength, Heisenberg's Uncertainty and the so-called quantum "fuzziness". Think of Brownian Motion that you may have been introduced to in highschool science class, where under a microscope you can see a speck of dust jiggling while it's floating in a drop of water. The jiggling is because the specks of dust are being bombarded by the smaller water molecules which you can't see. Likewise, with the dynamic vacuum concept, it has all these particle-antiparticle pairs winking in and out of existence, and this is what causes the "jiggle" that physicists refer to as Heisenberg's Uncertainty, quantum "fuzziness", and even deBroglie wavelength. If you find it hard to picture empty space being filled with particles briefly winking in and out of existence, consider the chemistry concept of dynamic equilibrium, where even if the net overall rate of reaction is zero in a stable equilibrium system, you can still have reactants converting into products and vice-versa at the smallscale molecular level. I don't agree with physicists saying that Heisenberg's *permits* vacuum fluctuations. It's the other way around -- the vacuum fluctuations *cause* Heisenberg's Uncertainty. Think *causality*, people -- don't put the cart before the horse.
- Mapou, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2This is complete hogwash although I'm not surprised. Truth is, movement is causal, i.e., it is based on cause and effect. The so-called "vacuum" does not impede movement; it makes it possible. Without sustained interactions, motion is impossible. Aristotle was right about this one. As a result, we are moving in an immense crystal-like lattice of energetic particles. It is responsible for both EM and gravitational phenomena. One day soon, we'll be able to use this "unlimited" energy for propulsion and other useful work. Deny at your own detriment.
Nasty Little Truth About Motion:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/nasty.htm#Motion- snupples, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Mapou,
This is a proposed test of current accepted theory. It's purpose is to either cast doubt on or further bolster the accepted theory, depending on the results. That's what science does. That's how we got this far in the first place.
Assuming that the method is valid, can you explain how this test is hogwash? Are you saying that scientific method is hogwash? Why do I bother... you spam the same site on every physics digg anyway. - phreakout, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Hi Mapou,
The page you refer to may have a couple of flaws in its prepositions, here are a few possibilities:
Motion requires no force, motion is relative - things move relative to one another. This is why Aristotle was wrong, he thought motion absolute. No force means no cause needed. To be blunt you don't need to move to be in motion someone else can just run away from you and say you are moving. Did anything cause you to move? In fact you haven't moved, yet still the fellow running away claims you are moving relative to him. How to solve this? Simply wait a little longer and he will soon have gone away.
A force is only required to CHANGE the motion of a thing not to keep it in motion (in the real world of course air resistance and friction make Aristotle seem right - this is why science ought really to be done in outer space). A change in motion is called acceleration. The force is required to overcome an mysterious intrinsic property of all things, called Inertial Mass.
The nature of Inertial Mass is a mystery. Is it sticky Higg's Bosons or Electromagnetic Interacion with the Quantum Vacuum ot some sort of sticky slime? Noone knows for sure - yet.
You really ought not to apply the discrete steps of the teeny tiny quantum world to the macroscale everyday world, this can only lead you to Zeno's Paradox and Well I wouldn't go there, it's quite hard to jump out.
This is a big exciting area for physicists: where the macroscale meats the quantum - there is a total discontinuity between the everyday world of things and the utterly counterintuitive behaviour of quantum sized things. (quantum just means as small as you can possibly get).
Time is the measure of change, if a thing is unchanging then for it there is no time. Einstein would have us accept Time as a Dimension of the Space Time Manifold and Gravity merely the percieved motion of objects over wrinkles in this fabric caused by matter.
Good luck with the theory though, despite its occasional flaws it seems a whole lot more plausible than string theory.
On an interesting side note the amount of energy contained in matter (e=mc^2/ nuclear bomb) is negligable with the utterly immense, practically infinite amount of energy contained in nothing (the quantuum vacuum) - the only problem is its homogenous and thus difficult if not impossible to extract energy from. - raid517, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@Mapou=Nutter!
- snupples, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Mapou,
- Atomic1fire, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2im ok with physics but why dont they spend more time finding a way for cars to not use gas instead of using money to prove science theorys
- karch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1uhh..
- phreakout, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0They have bikes.
- angryredplanet, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@ Atomic1fire
Money, power and politics - Atomic1fire, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1go ahead disdigg me for actully saying something worth while
- LordSkywalker, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0I really like my vacuum. Its yellow and...oh wait. Maybe I should RTFA.
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by