Two papers to be published in the Physical Journal D challenge the idea of vacuum properties
Two papers to be published in the Physical Journal D challenge the idea of vacuum properties. In one of the articles, scientists from the University of Paris-Sud in France identified a mechanism of quantum levels that explains the void (vacuum) in that it consists of pairs of virtual particles with fluctuations in energy levels. As a result of this mechanism, the internal properties of the vacuum, such as the speed of light traveling in the vacuum, may not be constant after all, but change.
At the same time, in another article by scientists from the Max Planck Institute for the Physics of Light in Germany, it was implied that physical constants, such as the speed of light and other constants such as the so-called impedance (resistance) of space, are actually an indication of the total number of elementary particles in nature.
The vacuum is one of the most challenging ideas in physics. When you look at it at the quantum level, the void (vacuum) is not really empty, but is filled with pairs of particles that are created and immediately disappear such as an electron and a positron or pairs of quarks and antiquarks. These particles are real particles, but their life time is extremely short.
In the article by the French scientists, they propose a complex quantum mechanism that can explain the magnetization and polarization of the vacuum, by referring to the permeability and primitiveness of the vacuum, as well as by referring to the speed of light.
These findings are essential since they imply a finite number of possible temporary particles per unit volume within the vacuum.
As a result, there is a theoretical possibility that the speed of light is not constant, as conventional physics assumes. But the speed can change and it depends on the energy of each quantum that makes up the light, i.e. a photon. It is also higher than fluctuations produced by gravitational levels.
The speed of light, then, will depend on the changes in the properties of the vacuum in space and time. The photon fluctuations in time are estimated to be of the order of 50 attoseconds per square meter in vacuum. This information can be obtained by ultrafast lasers.
The article by the German scientists, on the other hand, created a model of pairs of virtual charged particles and looked at them like electric dipoles that polarize the vacuum.
In the second article it was found that a certain characteristic of the vacuum known as impedance (resistance), which is a key component in determining the speed of light, depends only on the squared sum of electrically charged particles, and does not depend on their masses. If their idea is correct, the value of the speed of light considering the impedance of the vacuum, gives an indication regarding the total amount of charged elementary particles present in nature. Experimental results support this hypothesis.
27 תגובות
This is: as Meridor insisted on the infinite energy, as the alchemists insisted on turning lead into gold, as Lysenko insisted on the subject of evolution (and the religious still do today) as the church insisted on the geocentric model and all.
Keep insisting even though all your claims have long been refuted.
Yehuda - keep thinking original - this is how scientific revolutions are carried out - keep insisting! Mpemba insisted and his opinion was accepted. Science, despite its confident and omniscient appearance, is in total a partial explanation of the world picture - many paradoxes and questions without which there is no complete world picture are swept under the carpet, because they cannot be tested or they reject "solid" paradigms
NN - I love you!!!
There is no point in repeating the explanations and everyone is allowed to believe in their own explanation. Of course, it is recommended in the exam to say that the accepted explanations are your own.
Shabbat Shalom
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Sabdarmish Yehuda
1 - The Earth slows down its rotation. The moon is moving away from us. It works out great 🙂 It's caused by tides. This is how it comes out in computer simulations. This has nothing to do (not that I know of) with the movement of the continents. Why even think of another theory?
2 - Of course they measured it!! The meter is derived from the speed of light. There are constantly measurements in the world to increase the accuracy of the meter definition. The truth is, the speed of light is fixed by definition ……..and the published number cannot change. But they do check the consistency of the meter definition. Why do you claim otherwise?
3 – Differentiates are Ptolemy's addition to the epicycle model, and there are also extents ….. It happens that you have an unrealistic model that you insist is true.
Regarding your theory - you are the one who has to explain where the error is in the simulations that show that the moon moves away from us due to tides.
for miracles
1, the movement of the continents is not necessarily an explanation for the moving away of the moon. But the moon revolves around the earth and will reach a state of equilibrium between the centrifugal force and gravity. Therefore, if there is distance and it comes out exactly according to my data on the expansion of the universe and the speed of light, it is interesting. But you actually want continental movement, so be it.
2. You don't know of any measurement that shows that the speed of light changes because it has never been measured. I don't know of a research institute that would budget for it. There are those who refer to the Michelson Morley experiment as an experiment that shows that the speed of light is constant, but this is completely wrong. The experiment only showed that the speed of light is constant in every direction, but it absolutely did not show whether it changed at different points in time because the experiment was performed at one point in time. For example, if you are in a car and see that its speed is 60 km/h, you cannot tell from this whether its speed is constant, increasing, or decreasing. Only if you measure at another point in time will you know the change - if it exists.
Regarding section 3, I didn't understand what it has to do with episcals or the second word that I don't know.
Shabbat Shalom
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Sabdarmish Yehuda
1 – Andromeda is approaching. That is, the expansion of the universe is not the explanation for everything. In particular, the expansion of the universe is not necessarily an explanation for the moving away of the moon.
2 - To be precise - I don't know of any measurement that shows that the speed of light changes. Beyond that, I don't find any reason that the expansion of the universe would change the speed of light in space.
3 – You're kidding, right? Your explanation reminds me of episcals and deferent…..
Regarding 1 - nearby galaxies are approaching us - this is about Andromeda. So it is approaching, this does not mean that all nearby galaxies are approaching. Between us, two million light years is not that close. The Magellanic Clouds are closer and dwarf galaxies near the Milky Way as above and they don't fall on us.
Regarding 2- the speed of light has not changed in recent years??, why, has anyone measured?? It is about less than XNUMX mm per second per month!
Regarding 3- the conventional explanation is that the tides and the movement of the continents are what change and cause the moon to move away. It seems impressive to me that the receding distance is exactly the expansion of the Hubble, for the distance to the moon is 25 mm per year and since it is measured by the speed of light which is less than 10 mm per year, then a receding distance of about 38 mm per year is measured. But the distance is only 25 mm per year. But what do I understand?
Shabbat Shalom
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Your argument falls, and shatters with a loud noise for 3 simple reasons:
1. Nearby galaxies actually come closer to us, and this does not at all contradict the idea of the expansion of the universe. On the contrary: we expect that nearby bodies will get closer, and the effect of the spread will only be seen at very large distances.
2. The speed of light has not changed in recent years...
3. We have a well-known and simple explanation for the reason for the moon moving away. If you have a different explanation, then it means that there is a serious error in the accepted explanation.
I would appreciate it if you could show me the error in all 3 of my points.
And for those who also want what would appear to be proof of the change in the speed of light, below is my explanation of the moving away of the moon
https://www.hayadan.org.il/sevdermish-moon-040303/
There I show that the moving away of the moon is exactly what results from the expansion of the universe plus the change in the speed of light.
Unfortunately, I will not be allowed to publish any more articles in science because of the unacceptable opinion to say the least that I express in them.
Not bad. Continue to appreciate Avi Blizovsky for his wonderful site
(:))
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
to Gilead and others
The article is about body weight
https://www.hayadan.org.il/משקל-גופים-בייקום-מתפשט
to Gilead and others
Below is the article about the speed of light
https://www.hayadan.org.il/יקום-מתפשט-ומהירות-האור
A storm in a desert glass.
Want a killer opinion from a professional? you are welcome:
http://motls.blogspot.co.il/2013/03/speed-of-light-is-variable-only-in-junk.html
Joseph
The truth is that I don't get to the bottom of your mind. In quantum field theory, every point in spacetime is associated
Amplitude of the field, meaning there are infinite degrees of freedom. the amplitude of the field
from quants to particles. For example the electromagnetic field is defined by the electric field
and the genetic at each point the field (consisting of the electric and magnetic fields at each point
in space) are broken down into the quanta that make it up, i.e. particles. Each such particle carries
Energy and momentum if it is a real particle, i.e. an excited state of the field. If the field is in the state
The element (according to quantum theory it still continues to oscillate even when it is in the energetic state
the lowest - i.e. the ground state) every excitation of it is a virtual particle. The basic state is
The quantum vacuum. And it includes fluctuations of the different fields corresponding to different particles.
Of course, the various particles are obtained only from the excited levels of the field.
I will try to make an inaccurate analogy. The vacuum is like a calm sea that nevertheless has in it
small waves Big waves in the sea are the real particles. Hopefully now the issue
Clearer.
sympathetic
Thanks for your response.
You use the terms "space" "space" "full in the field" so I will define the question in a different form.
Let us define an abstract set containing infinitely many consecutive points. and define a function that connects every space-time in the universe to a member of the group.
The question is whether the group contains a single point (or sequence of points) which is not associated with a "field" "real particle" or "imaginary particle". If the answer is positive, how is this point(s) defined?
Sabradmish Yehuda, can you please elaborate a bit?
What is the name of your publication here?
I have always argued that the speed of light is not constant and is inversely proportional to the root of the background temperature of the universe, therefore it is a big mistake to determine the meter as related to the speed of light. I also wrote here in the science about the kg he loses from his weight.
All because of the expansion and cooling of the universe.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Dear Ehud,
Or in other words a particle that returns in time and moves forward in time, and the average is the "energy of space"
With respect and honor
Joseph
The concept of vacuum is related to quantum field theory. You asked about one thing and I got confused
you with another question. Quantum field theory assumes that space is filled with a field.
I will try to explain the movement of light in space from lighting with quantum field theory as excitation
electromagnetic field. The particle is thus a disturbance in the field more like a wave
The spread over the space confirms the mass points that we usually call particles
in classical physics. Space is full of quantum fields. Quantum theory tells
We know that the field cannot be zero in a certain area because the uncertainty principle tells
We always have quantum fluctuations. Fluctuations connecting particles
and creating interaction are called virtual. For example the existing electric power
between charges is carried out by the exchange of virtual photons. so that a particle
A real Yikra must obey the law of conservation of energy. in quantum theory
The energy can fluctuate but cannot be used because they are short
Haim Midi (again the principle of uncertainty).
Hello Yael!
From reading your article, for readers who do not specialize in the science of physics, it is necessary to provide more detailed definitions.
What does the term vacuum mean? If we assume that we choose a certain point in space-time, and the point is not contained in a list of elementary particles, can it be said that the point is contained in a vacuum?
Is the medium between a proton and an electron (or any two particles) called a vacuum? If not, then what is the difference between this medium and a vacuum?
What properties should exist in a particle in order for it to be called real and what properties should exist in order for it to be called virtual?
Is this a negative vacuum (one of the reactants)?
Not buying, there are not enough confirmations for the phenomenon
This is not a discovery, this is a theory. Weird famous theories new to mornings.
The fact that no fluctuations in the speed of light were found experimentally shows that even if the theory
Correct, the effect is very small. In addition, the theory is related to the connection between gravitation and theory
Quantum is a field that has fundamental theoretical problems.
Just a minute, what percentage of the speed of light are we talking about?
In addition, what does this say about the size and age of the universe?
Does this mean that by creating a negative vacuum (according to the Casimir experiment, etc.) it is possible to "increase" the speed of light? A historical discovery on every possible scale.
And again we come to multiple universes, in which in each universe different values of the physical constants.
A discovery that appears to be historical, which proves that the index of talkbacks is known and not at all relevant to the impact of the article.
Most of the public misses important messages. Why does it seem historical to me: because it breaks a convention in quantum mechanics about the constancy of the speed of light. You can view about half (3 pages) of the first article for free on the website
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1140%2Fepjd%2Fe2013-30578-7#page-1
Download the second article in PDF. on the right side of
http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1140%2Fepjd%2Fe2013-30577-8
This sounds like an important discovery. This means that the speed of light is not a physical constant.
It is also interesting how they will relate this to gravitation and general relativity.
Basically this means that the flow of time depends on the rate of creation of those virtual particles. and not the other way around.