| New Reply |
Is reverse time dilation posssible? |
Share Thread |
| Nov9-05, 04:51 AM | #35 |
|
Recognitions:
|
Is reverse time dilation posssible?
I agree with JesseM: the Casimir Effect proofs the possibility of less energy density than in a vacuum. However, the calculation of the vacuum energy density is not exactly a glorious chapter of modern physics. So I´d say it´s absolutely correct to say that there is no proof for negative energy.
|
| Nov9-05, 12:36 PM | #36 |
|
Recognitions:
|
|
| Nov9-05, 06:52 PM | #37 |
|
Recognitions:
|
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0001/0001099.pdf [Any references otherwise from respectable sources will be gratefully accepted.] In spite of the positivity of the actual energy density T_00 assigned to the cosmological constant [itex]\Lambda[/itex], the net effect is one of "effective" anti-gravity. Thus the over-simplification on my part is in thinking/describing that the strong energy condition is one of positive energy density - the energy density due to our positive cosmological constant is technically positive, but it causes the universal expansion to accelerate, not slow down, so it "acts" a lot like negative mass, and it meets the technical defintion of exotic matter in that it violates the strong energy condition. [add] Another way of thinking about it - in flat space-time, gravity couples to [itex]\rho+3P[/itex], so the negative pressure terms do give an effectively "negative" mass in spite of the positve density term |
| Nov9-05, 07:07 PM | #38 |
|
|
Consider a thought experiment; assume there is a way to harness zero-point energy. Again, you would be violating conservation of energy because no matter how much energy you draw off, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle forbids us from ever having an energy state of exactly zero. The Casimir Effect shows us that energy can indeed be harnessed for work (pressing two metal plates together), yet at the same time QM says that we can never use all of the energy (indeed, assuming zero point fluctuations are *just* powerful enough to prevent empty space from violating the Uncertainty Principle, we shouldn't be able to use any of it at all.) In short, I don't see how we can explain away this creation of energy, unless we also allow the creation of negative energy. |
| Nov9-05, 07:27 PM | #39 |
|
Recognitions:
|
|
| Nov9-05, 08:40 PM | #40 |
|
|
Negative energy is related to conservation of enegy because mathematically, one should be able to create energy out of nothing if one also creates an equal amount of negative energy.
My point, which you may or may not have refuted (unfortunately I have very little formal education, so many of the details of that link were lost on me), was that assuming all of empty space has a positive energy value would violate conservation of energy, whereas assuming that the value could go negative would not. My point is that if we reduce the amount of vacuum energy by any means, such as using it to push two small metal plates together (converting it into macroscopic kinetic energy), then that energy MUST be replenished somehow in order to prevent over-certainty. My assumption was that this was done by creating negative energy. Perhaps there is another way it can be replenished, or perhaps the problem is altogether moot if GR and/or QM does allow for creation of energy in some circumstances. Or perhaps I just don't know what I'm talking about 'cause I'm just a highschool dropout wannabe writer who reads up on physics in his spare time... |
| Nov9-05, 09:16 PM | #41 |
|
Recognitions:
|
|
| Nov9-05, 10:34 PM | #42 |
|
|
I do not know where I first read about the connection of the Casimir Force to the Uncertainty Principle, but a quick wikipedia lookup yields:
If one made microscopic and very light metal plates and put a small amount of pressure on them, not quite enough to move them on its own, but enough to move them after vacuum energy has exterted its influence, then wouldn't that be a case of someone turning vacuum energy into kinetic energy? Wouldn't that mean that we must have LESS vacuum energy than we started with? My contention is as follows: The Casimir Effect is a direct consequence of the Uncertainty Principle, and it proves we can convert vacuum energy into another form (kinetic.) BUT, the universe will not allow the reduction of vacuum energy in this manner because this would violate the Uncertainty Principle. So, if the universe will not allow this reduction, then it must replace the energy lost to maintain Uncertainty. Empty space does not need to have an inherent energy; it just needs to have a non-zero value to preserve Uncertainty. This non-zero value does not need to be positive, so I believe that the most elegant explanation that preserves conservation of energy is to say that zero-point fluctuations include both positive and negative values. I hope this will clear things up... |
| Nov9-05, 11:19 PM | #43 |
|
Recognitions:
|
|
| Nov10-05, 12:03 AM | #44 |
|
|
This means that empty space cannot exist, because empty space=0 energy. This is why we have "quantum foam" or zero-point fluctuations instead. And the Casimir Effect is a direct test of the existence these fluctuations. That is the relationship between the Casimir Effect and Uncertainty--zero-point fluctuations are a consequence of Uncertainty, and the Casimir Effect is a consequence of zero-point fluctuations. Vacuum energy is present to preserve Uncertainty, and to convert it to another form (in essence taking it away from the vacuum) would allow us to be too certain about the value of a particular point in spacetime. I can try to find some more links for you, but I'm a little pressed for time. I'm not saying anything that I haven't read in several pop science books (Hawking, etc.) I suppose we could take this to the QM forum and see if we can find a consensus there. |
| Nov10-05, 12:43 AM | #45 |
|
Recognitions:
|
|
| Nov10-05, 01:06 AM | #46 |
|
|
I don't want anyone to get the impression that I'm pulling stuff out of my ***, so:
Mainstream physicists have said that the Casimir Effect arises as a consequence of Uncertainty, not that it violates it. Mainstream physicists have also brought up the possibility of negative energy or negative mass, and I have heard them use the Casimir Effect as one such example. I have made the (possibly wrong) leap of logic to connect these two ideas and show why negative energy may be necessary in order to preserve Conservation while simultaneously preserving Uncertainty. I have not heard this idea from any source; it is just the result of me trying to make several different mainstream ideas fit together. My claim that a reduction in energy would result in Uncertainty breaking is my own. Since I have always heard the Casimir Effect explained in terms of the Uncertainty Principle, I assume that the fluctuations are just strong enough to preserve Uncertainty. It may be that there is a margin there, and that it is possible to convert some vacuum energy into other forms but not enough to break Uncertainty, but because of the way it was explained to me, I have no reason to believe that such an excess of vacuum energy exists. My claim that an increase in vacuum energy (e.g. to replace that loss through the Casimir Effect) violates Conservation is also my own, though I think it is a fairly straightforward assumption. And if all of my assumptions are correct, then they must also have an negative mass (or negative energy), at least sometimes. Anyway, I really must be getting to bed now. It's been great debating with you... will come back again and check tonight or Friday night. |
| Nov10-05, 09:59 AM | #47 |
|
|
What are uncertain in quantum mechanics are complementary pairs of observables. There are several of these; the easiest to prove from Schroedinger's (or any other quantum) equation is momentum and position. The more accurately you know momentum the more uncertain you must be about position, and vice versa. If you multiply the uncertainties together you get Planck's constant, so if you were to plot the uncertainty on axes of position for x and momentum for y, the uncertainty curve would be a hyperbola with those two axes as asymptotes.
Another set of complementary observables is spin around different axes. If you measure the spin around the z-axis, thus reducung its uncertainty to zero, the spins around the x and y-axes become completely uncertain. This is the physics behind the repeated Stern-Gerlach experiments described by Feynmann. The case of energy and time is a little different. It turns on they behave just like complementary observables, but because energy is an observable but time is not, the proof is different. I don't see any need for negative energy to balance conservation of energy in quantum mechanics. energy is conserved up to observation in quantum mechanics. And just as there is no preferred frame in relativity from which you can see "what really happens", so there is no opportunity in quantum mechanics to see the unobservable. For more on this, check out the threads on the quantum forum about hidden variables and Bell's theorem. |
| Nov10-05, 12:18 PM | #48 |
|
|
Work through some of the mildly complicated ones, you don’t need a cited papers to find them. Once you understand them & where they are useful, the hard part is to imagine a way to workout the issues without backwards time. Maybe with a MWI/HUP concept but I’d find that hard to implement usefully as the diagrams already have been. As to the Casimir force—“ it is an actual observed force that is predicted and explained by QM as negative energy.” As it’s only explanation! Therefore by using that explanation: “we KNOW exotic energy & matter exists, period”. Therefore by implication we know: Negative gravitation even Wormholes must be real! This is great! with ‘proof’ like this we should be able to show that HUP and thus QM is just as exclusively correct as that theory claims to be! – except that was the assumption that started all these 'proofs'! The point is; mind numbing "circular logic" like this may have some use in science (I’m not sure where), but why use something that hard to follow in fiction, when you already know that the cheesy ‘Flux Capacitor’ style is proven as acceptable anyway. Now if this thread has turned to finding what’s ‘correct’, I don’t think Casimir will do. Entanglement is the only recognized non-circular ‘proof’ for QM/HUP and we already have two or three active threads debating that issue. Accepting backwards time as something real that needs to be figured out is just one thing. QM – Casimir – wormhole – HUP is a spaghetti bowl. I’ll take Occam as my guide. SO, for me my money’s on backwards time a la Fenyman’s Diagrams is shown to be real and not a trick before Negative Gravitation is. In fact I’d bet that a Theory proving so would also show QM/HUP to wormholes as wrong. Since I seem to be in a minority on that at least I should get good odds, do ya’ suppose they have a line in Vegas? RB |
| Nov10-05, 01:24 PM | #49 |
|
Recognitions:
|
|
| Nov10-05, 03:47 PM | #50 |
|
Recognitions:
|
|
| Nov10-05, 05:59 PM | #51 |
|
|
[tex]F \sim \frac{hc}{d^4}[/tex] You can consider the energy as a negative work done by the vacuum (W ~ F d): [tex]\frac{F}{A} = \frac{E}{V} = \rho_{casimir} \sim - \frac{hc}{d^4}[/tex] The cosmological term is about: [tex]\rho_{\Lambda} \sim 10^{-120}[/tex] In Planck units. Between the Casimir plates one has: [tex]\rho \sim \rho_{\Lambda} - \frac{hc}{d^4}[/tex] [tex]\rho \sim 10^{-120} - \frac{1}{d^4}[/tex] Therefore d must be less than 1030 Planck lengths (10-5 meters) to have a negative energy density for gravitational purposes. With this estimation one would conclude that every Casimir experiment deals with negative energy densities, as usual distances are about 1 micrometer. |
| New Reply |
Similar Threads for: Is reverse time dilation posssible?
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | Replies | ||
| The relativity of time: time dilation | Introductory Physics Homework | 5 | ||
| The relativity of time: Time dilation | Introductory Physics Homework | 1 | ||
| Reverse time dilation possible? | Special & General Relativity | 5 | ||
| Discovering the Origin of Life through reverse-time physics simulation. | Chemistry | 2 | ||
| Time going in reverse | Special & General Relativity | 6 | ||