- #1
exeric
- 39
- 0
I have a few observations from my interactions on this site,not just from this latest post. (Please wait while I step onto my pedestal)
I don't know if its noticed by anyone else but there seems to be a herd effect. The latest and greatest theories that the majority seem to follow often don't pass the smell test. In other words they don't pass the simple rule that, in general, the theory that is simplest (without being overly simple) and still accounts for observable test results will generally be the right one. The fact that a physicist doesn't always do this doesn't have to do with that person not being a qualified physicist but instead that they aren't using critical thinking facilities. Critical thinking isn't an automatic quality that physicists are taught and physicist often get carried away about an outlandish theory JUST because they can do the math and it works out. Physicist are no different in that respect than any other profession - if one has an expertise in a certain area (say math and the manipulation of equations) people want to apply that expertise to everything. In other words, physicists all too often forfeit using the principles of Achims Razor( sic). Just so people don't think I'm just coming out of the blue I'll go to specifics.
Since the early 30s of the last century scientists have been discovering all the different particles by crashing particles together in accelerators. And in the process they've discovered the strong,weak, and electromagnetic particles. If I'm not mistaken I don't think they've ever discovered a graviton in all that time. I don't think they've ever discovered a gravity wave either. Please correct me if I'm wrong. But in spite of that all theoretical physics today has the emphasis on validating gravity as a separate fundamental force and trying to integrate that fact with the other EXPERIMENTALLY VALIDATED particles.
So in string theory since gravity can't be detected, well then, it must be that there are a bunch more dimensions and gravity isn't rooted in our dimension like the other forces and instead floats around from dimension to dimension. It sounds like horse puckey to me. Has anyone actually experimentally detected another dimension outside the space-time dimensions we already know. I don't think so. Its another example of using tortured logic in the face of unvalidated experimental results.
I know that isn't proof that there is an "absence" of gravity as a fundamental force but on the other hand it indicates to me a "presumption" whenever a theory of gravity force separates itself from the other three forces. I think it's just too big an assumption given the experimental evidence, especially as opposed to the experimental evidence of the other three.
Maybe the reason we haven't found gravity as a separate fundamental force experimentally is because it isn't one. Maybe gravity is just a byproduct of the quantum vacuum's interaction with matter. For some reason people have a hard time with this concept. Individuals can only speak for themselves but I've found many physicists would rather believe in 11 dimensions than to believe that gravity isn't a fundamental force. They would rather believe in 11 dimensions than that the quantum vacuum is real and not just a theoretical concept. Yet the quantum vacuum as a real thing originated from the very earliest work in quantum electrodynamics. And you can be relieved of some guilt - even those earliest pioneers couldn't quite believe it. But there have been real effects attributed to the vacuum field in the Lamb shift, Van der Waals forces, the Casimir effect, diamagnetism, spontaneous emission, and quantum noise. Is it possible that gravity is a side effect of the interaction of the quantum field with what would normally be called mass? I think so.
The most recent experimental evidence comes from the discovery of "dark energy".(This is just a rehash of info most of you know but it get us to an important point)Its really quite a confusing story. When they examined a certain class of very predicable supernovae they discovered that the universe seems to be expanding at an increasing rate. (Here's a good site)
http://super.colorado.edu/~michaele/Lambda/lambda.html
Specifically this equates to a cosmological constant of approximately 0.71. And they have a 99% confidence rating that the constant > 0. But at this website they calculate the vacuum energy using the Planck energy as an upper limit for the sum. Using that figure the Cosmological Constant would have to be, (get this), ~10^120!
But I started thinking about it. There have been real effects attributed to the vacuum field in the Lamb shift, Van der Waals forces, the Casimir effect, diamagnetism, spontaneous emission, and quantum noise. So one can't easily just write off that 10^120. If one assumes that that the "normal" application of ZPF energy equates to a Cosmological constant of 10^120 perhaps we should believe it but we should add something to it. If gravity isn't a separate force, but is a side effect of mass interacting with quantum effect of the vacuum field, then what would be required is counterbalancing effect of this gravitational action. In other words there is a Cosmological counterforce, Cosm(G), such that
10^120 + Cosm(G) ~ 0.71
This Cosm(G) wouldn't include the gravity of the mass we know about - that's already included in the .71 value. It would equate simply to gravity that permeates space and almost but not quite counterbalances the expanding effect of the energy in the quantum vacuum, a quantum vacuum that we know is real. The gravity that we are already aware of is simply the interaction of the quantum vacuum with matter. The gravity in the vacuum comes from the interaction of the quantum vacuum with virtual particles. These are particles predicted in quantum vacuum theory that come into existence spontaneously and then get annialated.
(Stepping off pedestal)
I hope I haven't offended people too terribly. If one is taken out of ones safety zone its not neccessarily a bad thing, though it usually feels that way at the time.
I don't know if its noticed by anyone else but there seems to be a herd effect. The latest and greatest theories that the majority seem to follow often don't pass the smell test. In other words they don't pass the simple rule that, in general, the theory that is simplest (without being overly simple) and still accounts for observable test results will generally be the right one. The fact that a physicist doesn't always do this doesn't have to do with that person not being a qualified physicist but instead that they aren't using critical thinking facilities. Critical thinking isn't an automatic quality that physicists are taught and physicist often get carried away about an outlandish theory JUST because they can do the math and it works out. Physicist are no different in that respect than any other profession - if one has an expertise in a certain area (say math and the manipulation of equations) people want to apply that expertise to everything. In other words, physicists all too often forfeit using the principles of Achims Razor( sic). Just so people don't think I'm just coming out of the blue I'll go to specifics.
Since the early 30s of the last century scientists have been discovering all the different particles by crashing particles together in accelerators. And in the process they've discovered the strong,weak, and electromagnetic particles. If I'm not mistaken I don't think they've ever discovered a graviton in all that time. I don't think they've ever discovered a gravity wave either. Please correct me if I'm wrong. But in spite of that all theoretical physics today has the emphasis on validating gravity as a separate fundamental force and trying to integrate that fact with the other EXPERIMENTALLY VALIDATED particles.
So in string theory since gravity can't be detected, well then, it must be that there are a bunch more dimensions and gravity isn't rooted in our dimension like the other forces and instead floats around from dimension to dimension. It sounds like horse puckey to me. Has anyone actually experimentally detected another dimension outside the space-time dimensions we already know. I don't think so. Its another example of using tortured logic in the face of unvalidated experimental results.
I know that isn't proof that there is an "absence" of gravity as a fundamental force but on the other hand it indicates to me a "presumption" whenever a theory of gravity force separates itself from the other three forces. I think it's just too big an assumption given the experimental evidence, especially as opposed to the experimental evidence of the other three.
Maybe the reason we haven't found gravity as a separate fundamental force experimentally is because it isn't one. Maybe gravity is just a byproduct of the quantum vacuum's interaction with matter. For some reason people have a hard time with this concept. Individuals can only speak for themselves but I've found many physicists would rather believe in 11 dimensions than to believe that gravity isn't a fundamental force. They would rather believe in 11 dimensions than that the quantum vacuum is real and not just a theoretical concept. Yet the quantum vacuum as a real thing originated from the very earliest work in quantum electrodynamics. And you can be relieved of some guilt - even those earliest pioneers couldn't quite believe it. But there have been real effects attributed to the vacuum field in the Lamb shift, Van der Waals forces, the Casimir effect, diamagnetism, spontaneous emission, and quantum noise. Is it possible that gravity is a side effect of the interaction of the quantum field with what would normally be called mass? I think so.
The most recent experimental evidence comes from the discovery of "dark energy".(This is just a rehash of info most of you know but it get us to an important point)Its really quite a confusing story. When they examined a certain class of very predicable supernovae they discovered that the universe seems to be expanding at an increasing rate. (Here's a good site)
http://super.colorado.edu/~michaele/Lambda/lambda.html
Specifically this equates to a cosmological constant of approximately 0.71. And they have a 99% confidence rating that the constant > 0. But at this website they calculate the vacuum energy using the Planck energy as an upper limit for the sum. Using that figure the Cosmological Constant would have to be, (get this), ~10^120!
But I started thinking about it. There have been real effects attributed to the vacuum field in the Lamb shift, Van der Waals forces, the Casimir effect, diamagnetism, spontaneous emission, and quantum noise. So one can't easily just write off that 10^120. If one assumes that that the "normal" application of ZPF energy equates to a Cosmological constant of 10^120 perhaps we should believe it but we should add something to it. If gravity isn't a separate force, but is a side effect of mass interacting with quantum effect of the vacuum field, then what would be required is counterbalancing effect of this gravitational action. In other words there is a Cosmological counterforce, Cosm(G), such that
10^120 + Cosm(G) ~ 0.71
This Cosm(G) wouldn't include the gravity of the mass we know about - that's already included in the .71 value. It would equate simply to gravity that permeates space and almost but not quite counterbalances the expanding effect of the energy in the quantum vacuum, a quantum vacuum that we know is real. The gravity that we are already aware of is simply the interaction of the quantum vacuum with matter. The gravity in the vacuum comes from the interaction of the quantum vacuum with virtual particles. These are particles predicted in quantum vacuum theory that come into existence spontaneously and then get annialated.
(Stepping off pedestal)
I hope I haven't offended people too terribly. If one is taken out of ones safety zone its not neccessarily a bad thing, though it usually feels that way at the time.
Last edited by a moderator:
