Researchers create light from 'almost nothing'

Is it Maxwell's Demon?

No, because the 'real' photons' energy comes from the power required to move the mirror...

Although technically speaking they did not physically move anything, more like modulated the "inductance of a superconducting quantum interference device (SQUID)"

Note the use of aluminum. According to Nikolai Kozyrev, Aluminum is the only element in the table of elements that will block Scalar waves. So you also have in use.. a translation/reflective system, in this 'conversion'.

Before I get taken to task on such a statement, I'll pre-retort(!) that there are incredibly high odds that Kozyrev knew a lot more about the subject than any boffin who cares to 'interject' on this website - about my observation and comment.

Incredible! This is one of those rare articles/findings that makes me love the sciences.

Und so. We have the first inklings that conventional science is being allowed to revealing what may in fact have been discovered decades ago.

Is scalar physics a profound reality deemed too dangerous for the mainstream and so ruthlessly suppressed? One can only imagine what chaos would have ensued had it been unleashed in the 1950s...
http://en.wikiped...ccultism

-Was that too much drama? Was otto too theatrical?

Well... they are not claiming free energy, so it's nice to see someone find a way to usefully extract the energy. i could easily see someone jumping the gun on this and decide that they are getting something for nothing.

I read a paper a while ago about NASA proposing the use of the Casimir effect to produce antiprotons. Does this have any affect on that?

gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2001/CR-2001-211116.pdf

"Is it Maxwell's Demon?" - Whomever

No. They are reducing the size of a cavity, and doing so at a high rate of speed.

Smaller cavities (between em mirrors) hold less energy between the mirrors than larger cavities, and the squeezing of the cavity therefor causes some of the energy within to be squeezed out.

If squeezed at a slow rate, the vacuum between the mirrors will "cool" thermally. However, if the mirrors are driven at a high enough speed (near c), then non-thermal pairs of photons will be produced that are detectable. The energy that promotes the internal EM field into real photons comes from the motion of the mirrors.

What this experiment shows is that real fields permeate the vacuum and that those fields produce real forces on real particles.

Statistically over time those forces sum to zero, but over short periods of time they do not. They represent a kind of quantized atto scael brownian motion in which E is typically conserved due to a lack of gears in the small.

Odd. Not only was my post garbled but the wrong link was posted. Very odd. But the truth will out!!
http://en.wikiped...e_Glocke

Is it Maxwell's Demon?

Virtual particles weren't even a glimmer in a theorist's eye when I was spawned. My schtick is thermal disequilibrium in fluids & gases, a different bailiwick altogether.

@Jaeherys
This research affirms the theoretical basis of Dr. LaPointe's startling paper. But honestly very few physicists question the ontological nature of the quantum vacuum anymore.

@Vendicar_Decarian

Statistically over time those forces sum to zero, but over short periods of time they do not. They represent a kind of quantized atto scael brownian motion

The vacuum field bears no resemblance to a gas or a fluid, so your pedagogical efforts here are invalid and misleading. Also there's no physical motion in this experiment, only oscillating inductance. And only one SQUID, not two mirrors. Call me old-fashioned, but I suggest that one read and understand a paper .before. one makes an effort to explain it to others:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.4714

What about the virtual electrons and positrons: can these be made 'real'? And what is "virtual" about the vacuum? Particles might be stable configurations of much smaller/lighter particles (which explains the dynamical wave nature), so virtual particles might be unstable temporal configurations, such that the underlying reality is simply a 'real' sea of much lighter/smaller particles (electrinos, positrinos, neutrinos ???). Although successful, quantum physics is still characterised by assumptions never proven by any experiment.

(quoting the article): "The experiment shows that the Casimir effect is not just theory"
This experiment was by no means the first to show that the Casimir effect is more than theory. Quoting the Wikipedia article:

Dutch physicists Hendrik B. G. Casimir and Dirk Polder proposed the existence of the force and formulated an experiment to detect it in 1948 while participating in research at Philips Research Labs.

(http://en.wikiped..._effect)
Also, the plates are not necessarily formed as mirrors. (Although, since they must be very flat in order to fit closely enough together for the effect to be detectable, they are probably reasonably good mirrors perforce.)

The typical example is of two uncharged metallic plates in a vacuum, placed a few micrometers apart, without any external electromagnetic field.

Further, the force differential between the outside and inside environment of the plates results in an external push, not an internal pull.

Construction work. Bridge building.
Compulsive desire. All that is needed are two words:
Virtual/Physical
or
Mathematics/Physics

"The vacuum field bears no resemblance to a gas or a fluid" - Demon

Actually it has many properties in common with fluids.

It is composed of particles.

It contains energy.

It is constantly interacting with "real" particles which are contained within it by altering their position and energy spin, among other things.

"Also there's no physical motion in this experiment, only oscillating inductance." - Demon

And the same effect can be had by changing the separation of two mirrors in space. Altering the inductance in the circuit just does the same thing in the time domain of the wave function.

"Call me old-fashioned, but I suggest that one read and understand a paper .before. one makes an effort to explain it to others:" - Demon

Sorry Charlie, but the explanation was perfectly adequate, except the last sentence whose wording was constrained by the character limit of this comment system.

"And what is "virtual" about the vacuum? " - Koen

We don't understand it very well, so I don't have an explanation for you. I will say that "virtual" particles exist for vanishingly tiny intervals and they don't get to travel very far before they are gone.

Excluding the observations being discussed, we know that these virtual fields exist because they have measurable effects on objects on the scale of dozens of atoms across and smaller that are in close proximity. There are excellent theoretical arguments for why they should exist as well.

The problem is that with QM there is no limit to how small a volume you can consider, and within that volume there should always be energy with a wavelengths smaller than the width of the container. Small wavelengths = higher frequency and the higher the frequency the greater the energy and hence gravitational force. So without some kind of cutoff, QM demands the vacuum energy be infinite.

No one understands how to resolve this problem.

"This experiment was by no means the first to show that the Casimir effect is more than theory." - whomever

Correct. The force has most recently been accurately measured using a MIM cantilever oscillator, as well as a host of other less precise techniques.

It should be noted that when two objects are pushed together by the force of the vacuum, the energy accelerating them comes from the vacuum. The plates gain energy from the Vacuum - from nothing - from space itself.

The inverse is also true. When the plates are separated, energy is pumped back into the vacuum. Energy is lost into the void.

@V_D

Actually [the vacuum] has many properties in common with fluids.

It is composed of particles.

It contains energy.

It is constantly interacting with "real" particles which are contained within it by altering their position and energy spin, among other things.

That's like saying "my wife resembles a cloud because they're both soft and white and made of particles, and interact with objects, among other things."

Here are just a few problems with your analogy:
- A gas resists compression, virtual particles don't
- There is no corollary of the Casimir effect with a gas
- Net vacuum energy is zero, net gas energy is positive
- Motion through a gas produces friction, motion through the vacuum does not
- A gas is subject to fluid dynamics, vacuum fluctuations are not

Virtual particles are viewed as the quanta that describe fields of the basic force interactions, which cannot be described in terms of real particles.

Source: http://en.wikiped...particle

While you don't get something for nothing (no energy from the vacuum of space - at least not more than you put into the movement ofthe mirror) you could actually use this effect to create a drive without reaction mass (by cupping the vaccuum chamber on one side).

There would be no momentum transferred upon creation of the particle pair, but there would be momentum transferred if one of the pair of annihilation photons hits the cup and the other escapes into deep space (since they are at 180° to each other this is likely).

Efficiency/acceleration would be very low, but with a good power source (fusion?) it might be more viable over the long run (interstellar) than carrying even the little fuel needed for current ion engines.

Is it Maxwell's Demon?

It isn't, of course. But it IS a bit of a challenge explaining why, without just waving your hands at the Second Law and punting. That's what makes it an interesting question.

On another note, @KBK I had NO idea that aluminum was opaque to scalar waves! Tell me, do you mean the scalar waves that are "standing wave points composed of quantities of conscious energy" or the ones that are "stationary points of light that are strung together in sequences, within the fabric of the cosmic morphogenetic field"?

http://www.keylon...aves.htm

So without some kind of cutoff, QM demands the vacuum energy be infinite.

Could the cutoff be Planck length cubed? If that's possible, would the energy still be so high that the Universe expansion isn't accelerating quite that much? Am I wrongly confusing DE with this VE?

Could the cutoff be Planck length cubed?

It seems like every theorist and his sister has a different answer to the vacuum energy density question. Feynman once famously estimated that the energy in the volume of an empty cup could boil off all the Earths oceans. Then renormalization came along, which basically says "energy density is irrelevant anyway, only energy differentials produce measurable effects." So now everyone blithely calculates differentials and awaits a theoretical breakthrough.

If that's possible, would the energy still be so high that the Universe expansion isn't accelerating quite that much? Am I wrongly confusing DE with this VE?

I didn't follow that first question, but the broad strokes of the cosmological constant (aka 'dark energy' in QM terms) and vacuum energy certainly seem akin at first blush, and some leading researchers are growing convinced that they're one and the same:
http://www.physor...526.html

If that's possible, would the energy still be so high that the Universe expansion isn't accelerating quite that much?

I didn't follow that first question,...

If there is no cutoff, then infinite freq = infinite energy. If the cutoff is Planck, that's still incredibly small, and I wonder if that would be the energy doesn't match up with what we would expect, given our estimates of expansion.

I don't even know where to begin to do that math. It seems like it would be easy for someone to rule this in/out, though.

@Skultch
Here's a terrific and readily-comprehensible assessment of this issue by Dr. John Baez, a brilliant mathematician who's fully qualified to summarize the results of all the relevant calculations involved here:

http://math.ucr.e...uum.html

"Could the cutoff be Planck length cubed?" - Skultch

In that case the amount of energy in the vacuum would be so large , 10**120 times too large, that all of space would instantly collapse gravitationally.

This is one of the problems of ZPE, it manifests but can't be as large as theory suggests.

To be fare, there is good reason to believe that most virtual particles are just book keeping fantoms of the mathematics that is used. Nevertheless, some of it must be real.

Probably the best way to approach the issue is to presume that virtual particles are all book keeping and then to find those instances where they are real.

Odd that I don't ever remember claiming that virtual particles composed a fluid. Can you show me where I have said such a thing?

"A gas resists compression, virtual particles don't" - Demon

The universe is expanding isn't it? And that expansion is accelerating isn't it?

Overcoming the acceleration in the expansion will take????

"There is no corollary of the Casimir effect with a gas" - Demon

The analogue is called surface tension.

"Net vacuum energy is zero, net gas energy is positive" - Demon

Actually, it is positive, hence the acceleration in the expansion of the universe.

"Motion through a gas produces friction, motion through the vacuum does not" - Demon

In the case of ZPE, it is acceleration that causes friction and is what causes inertial mass.

"A gas is subject to fluid dynamics, vacuum fluctuations are not" - Demon

That is simply baseless assertion on your part.

Odd that I don't ever remember claiming that virtual particles composed a fluid. Can you show me where I have said such a thing?

You use the analogy liberally:

They represent a kind of quantized atto [scale] brownian motion

and that quote came on the heels of lots of talk of "squeezing" energy out of the vacuum, which is another inaccurate analogy, since the vacuum does not oppose compression as a gas does, nor does it emit energy under compression as you stated here:

the squeezing of the cavity therefor causes some of the energy within to be squeezed out

Also:

Actually [the vacuum] has many properties in common with fluids.

So let's cut through the methane fog bank here. Cite one reputable scientific source that describes vacuum fluctuations in terms of a fluid/gas. If you can do that, I'll spare you the acrimony over your new farcical assertion that vacuum energy has explained inertia (which is merely a fringe claim by Haisch, Rueda et al).

A gas resists compression, virtual particles don't, there is no corollary of the Casimir effect with a gas, Net vacuum energy is zero, net gas energy is positive, Motion through a gas produces friction, motion through the vacuum does not, a gas is subject to fluid dynamics, vacuum fluctuations are not..

You're quite right, but this exactly why Vendicar_Decarian didn't talk about gas. He talked about fluid. For dense fluid nothing from the the above doesn't apply.

..virtual particles are viewed as the quanta that describe fields of the basic force interactions, which cannot be described in terms of real particles..

In dense aether theory they can be viewed like density fluctuations of Brownian motion of particles forming the vacuum. We should realize, we cannot see an aether, if we are using its waves for observation of neighbouring universe. No object can serve both like the subject, both like the mean of observation at the same moment.

Many people are too fast when denying the aether model of vacuum fluctuations. They don't realize, any particle environment can be observed from two dual perspectives: the perspective of longitudinal and transverse wave spreading. There is not distinct view, which could represent the aether completely, because the influence of both types of waves is always mixed in the same way, like mainstream physics describes the universe by various mixtures of relativity and quantum mechanics theories. These theories are mutually inconsistent, yet complementary in intriguing way.

The above experiment can be interpreted easily like the formation of ripples at the water surface around rotating glass plate, if we dip it through this surface attached onto vertical rotating axis.

By reducing the size of the cavity EM modes that were capable of residing within now find that the boundary conditions are such that they can no longer do so. So they are ejected from or absorbed by the cavity.

Meanwhile the increased pressure on the outside of the cavity increases and pushes the plates together, thus extracting more energy from the vacuum.

That is the squeezing that I am referring to.

"Cite one reputable scientific source that describes vacuum fluctuations in terms of a fluid/gas" - Pffffft

Straw man. I never said it was a fluid or a gas.

"I'll spare you the acrimony over your new farcical assertion that vacuum energy has explained inertia (which is merely a fringe claim by Haisch, Rueda et al)." - pffffft

Update on an Electromagnetic Basis for Inertia, Gravitation, the Principle of Equivalence, Spin and Particle Mass Ratios

Bernard Haisch, Alfonso Rueda, L. J. Nickisch, Jules Mollere

General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology
5 Sep 2002)

cont

By means of a covariant approach we show that there must be a contribution to the inertial mass and to the inertial reaction force on an accelerated massive object by the zero-point electromagnetic field. This development does not require any detailed model of the accelerated object other than the knowledge that it interacts electromagnetically. It is shown that inertia can indeed be construed as an opposition of the vacuum fields to any change to the uniform state of motion of an object.

The Inertia Reaction Force and Its Vacuum Origin
Alfonso Rueda and Bernard Haisch

GRAVITATION AND COSMOLOGY: FROM THE HUBBLE RADIUS TO THE PLANCK SCALE
Fundamental Theories of Physics, 2003, Volume 126, Part V, 447-458, DOI: 10.1007/0-306-48052-2_45

One objection against water surface analogy of vacuum can sound, for example: "if it's so, why we cannot see the ripples spreading from all objects in motion"?

One possible answer can sound, we cannot see such waves even at the water surface, until the acceleration of objects in motion isn't comparable with mean acceleration of water molecules. Such ripples therefore appear only above certain threshold of acceleration.

The whirligig beetles are actually using this feature of the water surface for their mutual communication. They're moving in circles, so they can radiate and detect the waves, which are bouncing off their prey. But when they're moving in straight direction, they're remain invisible for prey and/or other predators.

http://www.physor...528.html

As we can see, the behaviour of aether model of vacuum can be quite intriguing and it might not be so easy refusing it, when you handle it correctly.

Dr. John Baez, a brilliant mathematician who's fully qualified to summarize the results of all the relevant calculations

As I explained above, you can describe the vacuum from two main dual perspectives in similar way, like the water surface: from perspective of surface waves, which are transverse in similar way, like the light waves. This perspective corresponds the formalism of general relativity.

Or you can describe it from perspective of underwater waves, which are spreading through dense environment, and they're longitudinal ones. This perspective corresponds the description of quantum mechanics, IMHO..

Note that from perspective of surface ripples the common water surface is behaving like thin sparse environment, which doesn't prohibit the spreading of waves too much. From perspective of quantum mechanics it appears like very dense environment, instead. This paradox is the reason of so-called the vacuum catastrophe:

http://en.wikiped...astrophe

@V_D
I'll see your cranky science paper, and raise you two Nobel laureates and a recent peer-reviewed refutation of it in Physical Review A.

1.) Sheldon Glashow (who shared the 1979 Nobel prize with Steven Weinberg for electroweak unification) had this to say about Haisch and Rueda's theory:

This stuff, as Wolfgang Pauli would say, is not even wrong

http://www.newsci...ass.html

2.) Frank Wilczek shared the 2004 Nobel Prize in physics for his work on QCD, which shows that the inertial mass of hadrons comes predominantly from the kinetic energy and the confinement fields of their constituent quarks:
http://www.frankw...Mass.pdf

3.)

Consequently, the interaction of the accelerated oscillator with ZPF radiation does not produce inertia, at least not for the component of the Lorentz force that HRP considered.

Physical Review A
http://pra.aps.or.../e012114

Btw, here's the only review I could find of your $240 source book:

"Book Review: Gravitation and Cosmology: From the Hubble Radius to the Planck Scale"

Most of the contributions are more or less highly speculative, for example, article 1, as conceded by the author himself, or article 6, where the concept of a massive photon and the paradigm of "tired light" is supported.

http://www.spring...5m83567/

Jeez, "tired light" even got shouted down at the free energy chat boards...

"I'll see your cranky science paper, and raise you two Nobel laureates and a recent peer-reviewed refutation of it in Physical Review A." = Demon

Your first reference isn't referring to inertia or even inertial mass but referring to gravitational mass.

Your second reference is referring to mass and not inertia.

Your third reference doesn't seem to apply to anything being discussed here at all. Massive photons? Tired light? Sorry Charlie, you like to confuse things.

My comment was that inertia - not mass - was explained by a particles interaction with the void. I said nothing about "tired light" or "massive photon"s. Those comments are just part of your imagination.

Finally, the papers I linked to which derive a force which retards acceleration due to the interaction of charge with the vacuum, are not significantly different than the calculations that show how acceleration causes a component of the vacuum to appear as a (uniform) and real increase in the temperature of the cosmic background radiation.

If you contend that Virtual particles are simply book keeping mechanics - and you haven't directly stated this - then you have to have an alternative explanation to Uhnru radiation - which has been experimentally observed.

'It is currently not clear whether the Unruh effect has actually been observed, since the claimed observations are under dispute. There is also some doubt about whether the Unruh effect implies the existence of Unruh radiation.' -The rest of the wiki article was beyond me.

Your first reference isn't referring to inertia or even inertial mass but referring to gravitational mass.

You *have* heard of the equivalence principle...right? Possibly the most famous principle in physics...and one of the most tested...the one that equates inertial mass with gravitational mass. Sound familiar yet?

Third sentence from the top:
"The theory was previously used to explain inertial mass - the property of matter that resists acceleration - but it has been extended to gravitational mass, which is the property of matter that feels the tug of gravity."

Your second reference is referring to mass and not inertia.

Seriously?

Ok-dk. Here are MIT's terrific free online physics video courses with Dr. Lewin:
http://ocw.mit.ed...ll-1999/

My comment was that inertia - not mass - was explained by a particles interaction with the void.

Er. Inertia = mass. O nevermind...

The rest of the wiki article was beyond me.

It also shows that, if the effect exists at all, that an acceleration of 10^22m/s^2 would yield a temperature of only 1K. No help there. And John Baez corresponded with Bill Unruh about this whole cranky theory:

"Unruh says that Haisch and Rueda's calculations are wrong, and that a correct calculation shows a uniformly accelerating observer zipping through the vacuum state of a quantized electromagnetic field on Minkowski spacetime sees a *perfectly thermalized* bath of photons.

In particular, this means such an observer will see no "Rindler flux" - i.e., the expectation value of the Poynting vector is zero."
- John Baez http://groups.goo...b81f1b7f

Btw, Haisch, Rueda and Puthoff still haven't been able to offer *a single numerical prediction* for the mass of any particle. That puts their theory right on par with all the other vapid aether theories bubbling around out there.

Haisch, Rueda and Puthoff still haven't been able to offer *a single numerical prediction* for the mass of any particle. That puts their theory right on par with all the other vapid aether theories bubbling around out ther

This is common behavior of quantum mechanics, general relativity, string theory...

..Frank Wilczek shared the 2004 Nobel Prize in physics for his work on QCD, which shows that the inertial mass of hadrons comes predominantly from the kinetic energy and the confinement fields of their constituent quarks...

Frank Wilczek is a proponent of aether model too.. http://www.siddeu...y37.html http://www.nytime...ics.html

"Btw, Haisch, Rueda and Puthoff still haven't been able to offer *a single numerical prediction* for the mass of any particle." - Demon

Since they claim that it is momentum and not mass that is caused by motion through the vacuum, they have no need to calculate any mass.

You don't seem to understand the difference between momentum and mass.

""Unruh says that Haisch and Rueda's calculations are wrong, and that a correct calculation shows a uniformly accelerating observer zipping through the vacuum state of a quantized electromagnetic field on Minkowski spacetime sees a *perfectly thermalized* bath of photons." - Demon

If the vacuum field is non-existent as you have implied, then where does this perfectly thermalized bath of photons that pervades all of space come from?

"It also shows that, if the effect exists at all, that an acceleration of 10^22m/s^2 would yield a temperature of only 1K. No help there." - Demon

What is it that you think needs help and why?

cont..

And of course if you get rid of Unruh then you have to get rid of Hawking radiation as well.

You might read this....

The Unruh eect revisited
http://www-gat.un...uh_m.pdf

And this...

Simple arguments are presented that detectors moving with constant acceleration (even acceleration for a finite time) should detect particles. The effect is seen to be universal. Moreover, detectors undergoing linear acceleration and uniform circular motion both detect particles for the same physical reason. It is shown that the Unruh effect for a circularly orbiting electron in a constant external magnetic field used as a Unruh-DeWitt detector physically coincides with the experimentally verified Sokolov-Ternov effect.

On the physical meaning of the Unruh effect
E. T. Akhmedov and D. Singleton

JETP LETTERS
Volume 86, Number 9, 615-619, DOI: 10.1134/S0021364007210138

"Frank Wilczek is a proponent of aether model too.." - Orgon

Of course. It is the only model that I know of that is internally consistent and which preserves causality and can be expressed in a form where interactions are strictly local.

You may be interested in reading this....

Quantum Mechanics and Determinism

It is shown how to map the quantum states of a system of free scalar particles
one-to-one onto the states of a completely deterministic model

http://de.arxiv.o.../0105105

and

How Does God Play Dice? (Pre-)Determinism at the Planck Scale
http://de.arxiv.o.../0104219

"We should not forget that quantum mechanics does not really describe what kind of dynamical phenomena are actually going on, but rather gives us probabilistic results. To me, it seems extremely plausible that any reasonable theory for the
dynamics at the Planck scale would lead to processes that are so complicated to describe, that one should
expect apparently stochastic uctuations in any approximation theory describing the eects of all of this at
much larger scales. It seems quite reasonable rst to try a classical, deterministic theory for the Planck
domain. One might speculate then that what we call quantum mechanics today, may be nothing else than
an ingenious technique to handle this dynamics statistically."

HOW DOES GOD PLAY DICE ?
(PRE-)DETERMINISM AT THE PLANCK SCALE -
Gerard t Hooft
Institute for Theoretical Physics
University of Utrech

This is fun. I like absolutes. I am absolutely one hundred percent certain that the following will receive ridicule:

.1) Space is a suitcase. :) (Not the only property of space)

.2) e=energy p=momentum e=p :)

.3) Suitcase=photon :) (hint: massless)

My physics is fun. For every place you visit, there is a sticker you have placed on my suitcase for where you were.

Your travels have taken you whereever your imagination conjures up. Unruhland. QMland. GRland. Minkowskiland. etc.
You guys are tireless travelers. Always on vacation. lol

See you paradise. ;)

It is the only model that I know of that is internally consistent and which preserves causality and can be expressed in a form where interactions are strictly local

Apparently people aren't able to understand it. They're just downvoting mechanically, when they're seeing the "aether" word.

Mary had a lambda. And everywhere that Mary went, lambda was sure to follow.

Mary is sometimes called Space.

Mary's fleece is space. (Not snow)

Thanks to the team in Switzerland another portion of The Theory of Rips has been proven.
Rip Theory also predicts that the relationship between

F = G (meters)squared, and E = M (meters/second)squared

represents the potential energy of true space being transformed into energy and matter. True space ripping results in the transformation of the potential energy of gravity into the edges of the rips that occur, the kinetic energy in the movement of those edges, and the true spaces that form between those edges. The rips that occur, along with their kinetic energy and the true space that forms within these rips, make up the smallest particles of matter (TS Particles).
This experiment illustrates that matter is the transformation of the potential energy of gravity into kinetic energy and matter. Again, much thanks to the Swiss team for the experimental proof that this does occur, that something can be created from "nothingness".

© Copyright 2011 Thomas A. Sullivan

IMO it's worth recalling Wittgenstein's remark on the subject. "Tell me," he asked a friend, "why do people always say, it was natural for man to assume that the sun went round the earth rather than that the earth was rotating?" His friend replied, "Well, obviously because it just looks as though the Sun is going round the Earth." Wittgenstein replied, "Well, what would it have looked like if it had looked as though the Earth was rotating?"

We can now ask as well, how the vacuum would behave, if it had looked like being formed with massive particle environment? Apparently, many people today aren't willing to even think about it at all, thus effectively behaving like the obstinate opponents of Galileo in his era.

lol
Wonderful. Past mindsets to map future fallacies. Who will remember? Who will recall?

Russia has blessed Americans with a fable:
The Little Red Hen. And so, the answer to the above is;

Not I! Said the ...fly.
Not I! Said I!

Of course, the Ottos of this site will dismissed the Wittengnesteins as "Philostench" and "Philocrap".

Of course, the Ottos of this site will dismissed the Wittengnesteins as "Philostench" and "Philocrap".

Are you comparing your babble to wittgensteins babble? Yours is just static. His is actually dangerous.

lol
Danger is useful. You can confront or ignore danger.

Its good someone can rationally consider maxwell's demon.. the demon can do useful work, in practical terms and does so on a cellular level :]

length -> width
wavelength -> wavespan
higher -> manier
dynamical Casimir -> Unruh
http://google.com...erate%22
http://wiktionary...iki/nice
high -> great
larger -> greater
periods of time -> lengths

All fotòns are virtval; when something sees or metes quanta, they are real by definition; the former become polaritòns and plasmòns, gain mass, and lose swiftness. Thus, the inmassive quanta are nothing but models.

"What is the glow of one plate clapping?"

- A gas resists compression, virtual particles don't

This very thing is contradicted by Casimir effect, obverse and inverse.

- There is no corollary of the Casimir effect with a gas

A gas is fònònic; I'm sure there is one.

- Net vacuum energy is zero, net gas energy is positive

Vacvum/Background energhy is modulate by whatever matter is within the bounds. Its expectation value is therefore nonzero.

- Motion through a gas produces friction, motion through the vacuum does not

Schwinger effect and Hagedorn effect

- A gas is subject to fluid dynamics, vacuum fluctuations are not

You need to learn semicolons. The corollary of Bernoulli effect is Ampère effect, with effluvia.

Hahah, I'm smarter than MaxwellsDemon.

-Aut