island
Aug7-04, 05:06 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>vernonner3voltazim wrote:\n\n> island <island_in_the_stream@earthlink.net> wrote:\n> > vernonner3voltazim wrote:\n\n> > > > chronon (stephen@chronon.org) wrote:\n> > > > You ask why vacuum self-energy gives a repuslion rather\n> > > > than a gravitational attraction. My understanding of\n> > > > this is as follows: If the vacuum has energy then you\n> > > > need supply that energy to create more vacuum. Think\n> > > > of a piston in a sealed container you have to do work\n> > > > to pull it out. In that case it\'s the external air\n> > > > pressure pushing, but you should imagine a case where\n> > > > the work has to be done simply to create more vacuum.\n> > > > This means that there is effectively a negative\n> > > > pressure in a vacuum with self-energy.\n\n> > > I do understand this, but it still does not make sense\n> > > in the context of the Universe. The expanding Universe\n> > > is creating more vacuum, right? The energy to do that\n> > > should be coming FROM that expansion. Next, if that\n> > > new vacuum is now a source of repulsion in the Universe,\n> > > causing acceleration and the creation of even more\n> > > vacuum, then what happened to Energy Conservation?\n\n\n> > You don\'t have to "pull on the plunger to increase the\n> > vacuum". You can also increase the vacuum by way of\n> > condensation or compression, otherwise known as rarefaction.\n\n> > General Relativity says that gravitation is essentially\n> > curvature due to the energy contained in a region, so the\n> > condensation of enough vacuum energy over a region of space\n> > effectively converts this energy to the positve mass of\n> > particle pairs, and the \'departure\' is maintained in this\n> > manner. These departures will no longer produce negative\n> > curvature, so they cannot have negative mass, because the\n> > energy density of these particles does not represent the\n> > background density.\n\n\n> I\'m sorry, but that is not clear. GR has never had much to\n> do with particle pairs...\n\n\nThat\'s because Einstein abandoned his static model after everyone\n*assumed* that it was unstable, but that is not the case, in this case,\nsince an increase in negative pressure and energy is offset by the\nincrease in mass energy.\n\nhttp://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_constant.html\n\n> > Negative mass particles would make up the cosmological\n> > constant by way of -rho, which is entirely difffernt\n> > than observed antimatter particles, which do not.\n\nhttp://www.geocities.com/naturescience//index.html\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>vernonner3voltazim wrote:
> island <island_in_the_stream@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > vernonner3voltazim wrote:
> > > > chronon (stephen@chronon.org) wrote:
> > > > You ask why vacuum self-energy gives a repuslion rather
> > > > than a gravitational attraction. My understanding of
> > > > this is as follows: If the vacuum has energy then you
> > > > need supply that energy to create more vacuum. Think
> > > > of a piston in a sealed container you have to do work
> > > > to pull it out. In that case it's the external air
> > > > pressure pushing, but you should imagine a case where
> > > > the work has to be done simply to create more vacuum.
> > > > This means that there is effectively a negative
> > > > pressure in a vacuum with self-energy.
> > > I do understand this, but it still does not make sense
> > > in the context of the Universe. The expanding Universe
> > > is creating more vacuum, right? The energy to do that
> > > should be coming FROM that expansion. Next, if that
> > > new vacuum is now a source of repulsion in the Universe,
> > > causing acceleration and the creation of even more
> > > vacuum, then what happened to Energy Conservation?
> > You don't have to "pull on the plunger to increase the
> > vacuum". You can also increase the vacuum by way of
> > condensation or compression, otherwise known as rarefaction.
> > General Relativity says that gravitation is essentially
> > curvature due to the energy contained in a region, so the
> > condensation of enough vacuum energy over a region of space
> > effectively converts this energy to the positve mass of
> > particle pairs, and the 'departure' is maintained in this
> > manner. These departures will no longer produce negative
> > curvature, so they cannot have negative mass, because the
> > energy density of these particles does not represent the
> > background density.
> I'm sorry, but that is not clear. GR has never had much to
> do with particle pairs...
That's because Einstein abandoned his static model after everyone
*assumed* that it was unstable, but that is not the case, in this case,
since an increase in negative pressure and energy is offset by the
increase in mass energy.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_constant.html
> > Negative mass particles would make up the cosmological
> > constant by way of -\rho, which is entirely difffernt
> > than observed antimatter particles, which do not.
http://www.geocities.com/naturescience//index.html
> island <island_in_the_stream@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > vernonner3voltazim wrote:
> > > > chronon (stephen@chronon.org) wrote:
> > > > You ask why vacuum self-energy gives a repuslion rather
> > > > than a gravitational attraction. My understanding of
> > > > this is as follows: If the vacuum has energy then you
> > > > need supply that energy to create more vacuum. Think
> > > > of a piston in a sealed container you have to do work
> > > > to pull it out. In that case it's the external air
> > > > pressure pushing, but you should imagine a case where
> > > > the work has to be done simply to create more vacuum.
> > > > This means that there is effectively a negative
> > > > pressure in a vacuum with self-energy.
> > > I do understand this, but it still does not make sense
> > > in the context of the Universe. The expanding Universe
> > > is creating more vacuum, right? The energy to do that
> > > should be coming FROM that expansion. Next, if that
> > > new vacuum is now a source of repulsion in the Universe,
> > > causing acceleration and the creation of even more
> > > vacuum, then what happened to Energy Conservation?
> > You don't have to "pull on the plunger to increase the
> > vacuum". You can also increase the vacuum by way of
> > condensation or compression, otherwise known as rarefaction.
> > General Relativity says that gravitation is essentially
> > curvature due to the energy contained in a region, so the
> > condensation of enough vacuum energy over a region of space
> > effectively converts this energy to the positve mass of
> > particle pairs, and the 'departure' is maintained in this
> > manner. These departures will no longer produce negative
> > curvature, so they cannot have negative mass, because the
> > energy density of these particles does not represent the
> > background density.
> I'm sorry, but that is not clear. GR has never had much to
> do with particle pairs...
That's because Einstein abandoned his static model after everyone
*assumed* that it was unstable, but that is not the case, in this case,
since an increase in negative pressure and energy is offset by the
increase in mass energy.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_constant.html
> > Negative mass particles would make up the cosmological
> > constant by way of -\rho, which is entirely difffernt
> > than observed antimatter particles, which do not.
http://www.geocities.com/naturescience//index.html