Ephemeral vacuum particles induce speed-of-light fluctuations

Mar 25, 2013

New research shows that the speed of light may not be fixed after all, but rather fluctuates.

Two forthcoming European Physical Journal D papers challenge established wisdom about the nature of vacuum.

In one paper, Marcel Urban from the University of Paris-Sud, located in Orsay, France and his colleagues identified a mechanism for interpreting vacuum as being filled with pairs of with fluctuating energy values. As a result, the inherent characteristics of vacuum, like the , may not be a constant after all, but fluctuate. Meanwhile, in another study, Gerd Leuchs and Luis L. Sánchez-Soto, from the Institute for the Physics of Light in Erlangen, Germany, suggest that physical constants, such as the speed of light and the so-called impedance of free space, are indications of the total number of elementary particles in nature.

Vacuum is one of the most intriguing concepts in physics. When observed at the quantum level, vacuum is not empty. It is filled with continuously appearing and disappearing particle pairs such as electron-positron or quark-antiquark pairs. These ephemeral particles are real particles, but their lifetimes are extremely short.

In their study, Urban and colleagues established, for the first time, a detailed quantum mechanism that would explain the magnetisation and polarisation of the vacuum, referred to as vacuum permeability and , and the finite speed of light. This finding is relevant because it suggests the existence of a limited number of ephemeral particles per unit volume in a vacuum. As a result, there is a that the speed of light is not fixed, as conventional physics has assumed. But it could fluctuate at a level independent of the energy of each light quantum, or photon, and greater than fluctuations induced by quantum level gravity. The speed of light would be dependent on variations in the vacuum properties of space or time. The fluctuations of the photon propagation time are estimated to be on the order of 50 attoseconds per square meter of crossed vacuum, which might be testable with the help of new ultra-fast lasers.

Leuchs and Sanchez-Soto, on the other hand, modelled virtual charged particle pairs as electric dipoles responsible for the polarisation of the vacuum.. They found that a specific property of vacuum called the impedance, which is crucial to determining the speed of light, depends only on the sum of the square of the electric charges of particles but not on their masses. If their idea is correct, the value of the speed of light combined with the value of impedance gives an indication of the total number of charged existing in nature. Experimental results support this hypothesis.

Explore further: Cooling with molecules

More information: M. Urban et al. (2013), The quantum vacuum as the origin of the speed of light, European Physical Journal D, DOI 10.1140/epjd/e2013-30578-7

Gerd Leuchs and Luis L. Sánchez-Soto (2013), A sum rule for charged elementary particles, European Physical Journal D, DOI 10.1140/epjd/e2013-30577-8

Related Stories

Scientists create light from vacuum

Nov 17, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Scientists at Chalmers University of Technology have succeeded in creating light from vacuum – observing an effect first predicted over 40 years ago. The results will be published tomorrow ...

Light particles illuminate the vacuum

Feb 26, 2013

Researchers from the Finnish Aalto University and the Technical Research Centre of Finland succeeded in showing experimentally that vacuum has properties not previously observed. According to the laws of ...

Researchers create light from 'almost nothing'

Jun 06, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- A group of physicists working out of Chalmers University of Technology in Gothenburg, Sweden, have succeeded in proving what was until now, just theory; and that is, that visible photons could ...

Recommended for you

Cooling with molecules

11 hours ago

An international team of scientists have become the first ever researchers to successfully reach temperatures below minus 272.15 degrees Celsius – only just above absolute zero – using magnetic molecules. ...

Backpack physics: Smaller hikers carry heavier loads

Oct 21, 2014

Hikers are generally advised that the weight of the packs they carry should correspond to their own size, with smaller individuals carrying lighter loads. Although petite backpackers might appreciate the ...

User comments : 83

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

rubberman
1.7 / 5 (7) Mar 25, 2013
"Vacuum is one of the most intriguing concepts in physics. When observed at the quantum level, vacuum is not empty. It is filled with continuously appearing and disappearing particle pairs such as electron-positron or quark-antiquark pairs. These ephemeral particles are real particles, but their lifetimes are extremely short."

If the above is accurate, the calculation mentioned below cannot be performed to any degree of accuracy unless the particles come and go at a fixed rate which we have determined and verified.

"If their idea is correct, the value of the speed of light combined with the value of vacuum impedance gives an indication of the total number of charged elementary particles existing in nature. Experimental results support this hypothesis."

However, after reading the second link to the abstract, it would appear Physorg has paraphrased the abstract poorly. It should be the total # of "types" of particles....

Dr_toad
Mar 25, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
vacuum-mechanics
1 / 5 (19) Mar 25, 2013
In one paper, Marcel Urban from the University of Paris-Sud, located in Orsay, France and his colleagues identified a quantum level mechanism for interpreting vacuum as being filled with pairs of virtual particles with fluctuating energy values. As a result, the inherent characteristics of vacuum, like the speed of light, may not be a constant after all, but fluctuate…..

This seems an interesting concept which was proposed to replace the conventional concept, but one crucial problem is that it is rather weird and difficult to understand how and why it is something like that! Maybe this simple physical view of the mechanism could help us to visualize it.
http://www.vacuum...21〈=en
Modernmystic
3.4 / 5 (10) Mar 25, 2013
If true even small fluctuations can add up over time and distance. It could change some fundamental assumptions based on any such calculations.
Tektrix
1.5 / 5 (10) Mar 25, 2013
"The fluctuations of the photon propagation time are estimated to be on the order of 50 attoseconds per square meter of crossed vacuum"

What?


I know, huh . . . I think they meant 50 attoseconds per cubic watt of X-vacuum. :P
Higgsbengaliboson
5 / 5 (3) Mar 25, 2013
When light is passing through free space and when it's passing through a medium are two complete different phenomena.While passing through the vacuum the velocity of light is independent to that of photon energy but it's dependent on vacuum properties of space and time.Theory of relativity has cognitive relation with this particular phenomena but according to special theory of relativity the velocity of light will be consistent even when it's passing through vacuum.
GSwift7
2.9 / 5 (7) Mar 25, 2013
Vacuum is one of the most intriguing concepts in physics. When observed at the quantum level, vacuum is not empty. It is filled with continuously appearing and disappearing particle pairs


This distinction between vacuum and non-vacuum seems arbritrary to me. What is so different about space in one place than space in another place? Shouldn't the same thing happen anywhere, even inside a solid object? If not, then what is it about the proximity to a solid object that makes it different? The same rules should apply everywhere in the Universe.
Ophelia
3.6 / 5 (5) Mar 25, 2013
Urban paper at http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.6165

Leuchs paper at http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.3923

The speed of light has long been known to be dependent upon the properties of the medium it is travelling through. If the properties of the vacuum fluctuate, so should the speed of light. I guess I'm confused about what is "new" here beyond putting a number to it and perhaps providing some new equations to describe it. (Which isn't to diminish what they have done; just to say conceptually there doesn't seem to be something new, at least in Urban's work, as far as I understand all of this stuff - feel free to enlighten me).

ValeriaT
1 / 5 (13) Mar 25, 2013
When light is passing through free space and when it's passing through a medium are two complete different phenomena.
Only when you neglect the quantum fluctuations of vacuum (i.e. the Brownian noise of aether). After then the spreading of light in vacuum doesn't differ from spreading of light through any other material environment. Welcome on the board of dense aether model...;-)
I'm confused about what is "new" here beyond putting a number to it and perhaps providing some new equations to describe it
Of course, absolutely nothing strange is about it in context of dense aether model, because the speed of waves fluctuates in every particle environment. For people, who still believed, that the vacuum is empty space it may sound surprisingly though. IMO the second part of Urban's work is way more interesting - he essentially guesses the number of particles observable just from two physical constants. What this connection actually tells us about observable reality?
GSwift7
4.2 / 5 (14) Mar 25, 2013
The speed of light has long been known to be dependent upon the properties of the medium it is travelling through. If the properties of the vacuum fluctuate, so should the speed of light. I guess I'm confused about what is "new" here beyond putting a number to it


Yeah, same thing I was thinking, but from the other side of the reasoning. The speed of light has always been known to be variable in anything other than a perfect vacuum, and there's no such thing as perfect vacuum. That's why we define the speed of light as the speed of light in a hypothetical perfect vacuum. It reminds me of my physics department head who used to talk about going to buy frictionless pulleys, or using perfectly rigid beams. Same thing goes for the mythical "uniform field".

In AWT the photons correspond the solitons at the water surface


Maybe the turtles are swimming in the aether, and that's what makes the waves!! ATWT, Aether Turtle Wave Theory! lol
GSwift7
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 25, 2013
Of course, absolutely nothing strange is about it in context of dense aether model


Yes there is. If you try to use a prefered frame of reference then you end up with Lorentz symetry problems. For example, you get solutions that allow for an object with zero momentum with non-zero mass and velocity because an infinity in the denominator of the momentum term allows you to cancel it out.

The moment you try to introduce a prefered frame of reference, you MUST throw out 99% of all known physics. No set of equations that are generalized remain valid, and I would argue that any non-generalized equations are problaby not complete in the first place.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 25, 2013
I might be wrong but it looks like NASA is exploring vacuum energy as a form of space propulsion.

"The group reports that the Q-thruster will utilize quantum vacuum fluctuations as the fuel source. The quantum mechanical Casimir effect has demonstrated that quantum vacuum fluctuations do exist and other hypothetical effects such as the Unruh effect may also create similar fluctuations." http://en.wikiped...thruster

-Theyre into all kinds of freeky stuff lately.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (12) Mar 25, 2013
If you try to use a preferred frame of reference then you end up with Lorentz symmetry problems.
The particle environment always supports at least two kinds of waves: the transverse (T) and longitudinal (L) ones. Now we have four possible options: which kind of waves causes the Lorentz symmetry problem with particle model of vacuum : 1) both T and L 2) only T, L not 3) only L, T not 4) neither T, nor L?
They're into all kinds of freaky stuff lately
Because they finally realized, what this stuff is all about? BTW the EMDrive was confirmed with Chinese, so we could have the reactionless drive without any external source of energy.
GSwift7
4 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2013
I might be wrong but it looks like NASA is exploring vacuum energy as a form of space propulsion.


Yeah, but getting a strong enough field to make bulk quantum effects happen in a uniform direction has never turned out to be feasible on large enough scales. You end up needing an enormous power supply to make it happen, which defeats the purpose, if the theoretical results translate into real world effects at all. I think you run into problems with the Uncertainty Principle pretty fast when you try to scale it up past quantum size and durration. If you can get something like this to work, then you can also do time travel and teleportation. If you can make bulk quantum effects happen for long periods of time, then you can do anything an electron can do.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 25, 2013
Because they finally realized, what this stuff is all about? BTW the EMDrive was confirmed with Chinese
You trust the chinese? The people who think that melamine is a protein and that powdered rhino horn improves ones chi?

"As described, the device's operation violates several basic laws of physics; notably conservation of momentum, though the inventor insists to the contrary. John Costella, an expert in relativistic electrodynamics describes the EmDrive as a 'fraud'. The Chinese results are a matter of significant debate within the Aerospace community,[citation needed] and are considered quite controversial."
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (8) Mar 25, 2013
Yeah, but getting a strong enough field to make bulk quantum effects happen in a uniform direction has never turned out to be feasible on large enough blah.
Yeah it appears that your opinion is formed on info that is out of date. Read the article I posted and find out why NASA feels it is worth wasting time and money NOW to do this research.

And no, I wont be posting excerpts from an article readily available for you to read.
GSwift7
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 25, 2013
The particle environment always supports at least two kinds of waves: the transverse (T) and longitudinal (L) ones. Now we have four possible options: which kind of waves causes the Lorentz symmetry problem


lol, sorry, but that's circular reasoning. The very assumption that there's any such thing as latitude or longitude is the problem. It's all the same, or you get a Lorentz violation. You can't define any preference for one direction versus another or it becomes possible to produce a singularity in one direction without creating one in another. That causes all kinds of problems with consistency between terms.
GSwift7
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 25, 2013
Yes, I read your link. Here's a quote from Paul March on the NASA forum. He worked on this a few years ago. The following quote is from this time last year.

so we press forward to generate data that will prove or disprove Sonny's current QVF/MHD conjecture, while Woodward does the same for his. Let's hope that at least one of them is near the mark


It's worth having NASA do this kind of basic research because no private company will fund this kind of thing. The cost is high compared to the potential for success. DARPA constantly funds a shotgun blast of this type of research, in full knowledge that only a few pellets will hit their mark. The potential pay-off when one of them hits is huge though. Not to mention that continued funding for basic research will attract tallent from other countries and promote STEM education. You don't want the next Einstien to end up working as a Walmart greeter.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (8) Mar 25, 2013
You trust the Chinese? The people who think that melamine is a protein and that powdered rhino horn improves ones chi?
LOL, just don't tell me, you're meaning such a comment seriously. More than 60% of Americans is still believing in creation - and what? They still visited the Moon first.
sorry, but that's circular reasoning.
Nope, this question is very simple: which kind of waves suffers with drag of particle environment: transverse or longitudinal or none or both? It's question about Victorian physics. If you don't know the answer already, you're unqualified for another discussion here with me.
The cost is high compared to the potential for success.
This research is actually very cheap and its success is already provided. Do you think, the device like this one is expensive? It generates 200 mg of drag force.
ValeriaT
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 25, 2013
NASA itself comments the Woodward drive prototype in the following way:

"The QVPT line of research has produced data suggesting very high specific impulse coupled with high specific force. If the physics and engineering models can be explored and understood in the lab to allow scaling to power levels pertinent for human spaceflight, 400kW SEP human missions to Mars may become a possibility, and at power levels of 2MW, 1-year transit to Neptune may also be possible. Additionally, the lab is implementing a warp field interferometer that will be able to measure spacetime disturbances down to 150nm. Although the expected magnitude of the effect would be tiny, it may be a "Chicago pile" moment for this area of physics".
Shootist
1 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2013
The board is full of sock puppets.

Too bad none of them are as cute as Cecil.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Mar 25, 2013
Well, if the speed of light is really dependent on vacuum fluctuations then we should be able to test it: measure the speed of light accross a set of plates that exhibit the Casimir effect (suppressing part of the vacuum fluctuations because it limits the wavelengths - and hence possible energies that virtual particle pairs exhibit) and we will see whether light 'speeds up' over and above the 'regular' value.
DavidW
1 / 5 (6) Mar 25, 2013
Of course, absolutely nothing strange is about it in context of dense aether model


Yes there is. If you try to use a prefered frame of reference then you end up with Lorentz symetry problems. For example, you get solutions that allow for an object with zero momentum with non-zero mass and velocity because an infinity in the denominator of the momentum term allows you to cancel it out.

The moment you try to introduce a prefered frame of reference, you MUST throw out 99% of all known physics. No set of equations that are generalized remain valid, and I would argue that any non-generalized equations are problaby not complete in the first place.


You can argue as long as you want, but it won't change the fact that if life doesn't exist to observe something, then for all practical purposes, it really doesn't exist, and that is constant at all scales for us. Only the truthful solutions will really work. Again, another constant, truth is required with life.
DavidW
1 / 5 (6) Mar 25, 2013
It would seem that physics works in many environments pretty well. Whatever the total explanation is, most of these discoveries will be a part of it. I found, "...the sum of the square of the electric charges..." very interesting. That alone could be very helpful as they indicate.
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (8) Mar 25, 2013
Again, another constant, truth is required with life.

I think you're too hung up on this 'life is important' stuff.

Life is a result of physics/chemistry. There's nothing qualitatively different in the physics/chemistry that we label life than in the rest of nature (or can you point to aby law of physics that applies to life and not to other things?).
It's only a bit of a different arrangement in a slightly other (self-recreating) way. That's all.

Life is cool. But it's no more important or central to the universe than rocks.
MrVibrating
1 / 5 (3) Mar 25, 2013
Well, if the speed of light is really dependent on vacuum fluctuations then we should be able to test it: measure the speed of light accross a set of plates that exhibit the Casimir effect (suppressing part of the vacuum fluctuations because it limits the wavelengths - and hence possible energies that virtual particle pairs exhibit) and we will see whether light 'speeds up' over and above the 'regular' value.


How does the Casimir rig help? It doesn't 'summon' vacuum activity, it simply co-opts the ambient background fizz. The virtual photon-sphere is also believed to comprise the magnetic field however, so C as a function of magnetic field density might be worth testing.. certainly in a magnetic material, propogation speed is a function of field density, but that slows to tens of meters / sec. so is orders of magnitude slower than the effect they're looking for.

Vacuum density is also a function of temperature, tho i'm unsure how vacuum itself can /have/ temperature..
vlaaing peerd
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 26, 2013
The string theory considers the light speed constant and the variable speed of light at short distance/time scales would therefore represent serious flaw in basic string theory postulates just at the dimensional scale, which the string theory wants to describe...

Perhaps light only appears to fluctuate in speed as vacuum fluctuations cause space and time not to be flat on the small scale. But then you need to include gravity, which in this article they didn't and therefore you aren't and string theorists don't.

To me it sounds a bit like "let's put a limit to the maximum amount of virtual particles!" and suddenly they find there isn't enough gravitational mass there and then blame C for it.

but ey, I'm no scientist and neither are you.
DavidW
1 / 5 (6) Mar 26, 2013

I think you're too hung up on this 'life is important' stuff.


I realize it seems that way to you. This article is about making more precise measurements on something that may not even exist (a perfect vacuum) to help understand our environment.

Yet, something as real as life, what it is, and its effect on all things (including measurements and/or observations and/or our understanding) is basically ignored. Keep trying to grab those gremlins. Maybe you will find a result of life.
DavidW
1 / 5 (8) Mar 26, 2013
Perhaps life and/or truth are really other dimensions, then things like time/distance and math take their rightful place as virtual dimensions within the higher dimension of life. Neither the noise nor the environment for it to exist actually do exist (for any practical real purpose) without life. Like duh!

We have over 50 billions animals being killed yearly for personal gratification alone, wiping out the the forests in Brazil, etc... and with this level of sickness in the world it is kind of silly to expect the typical person that kills for enjoyment to take life seriously at all, in anything, after treating it with such disregard.
nEc2
4 / 5 (8) Mar 26, 2013
Zeph, u really don't know what are u talking about. I don't understand, why are u keep posting bsh*ts here... Neither the effect is proved, nor NASA claims officially anything about it.
And really - start reading physics and solving problems. It will help you not to look stupid (i hope, thou i doubt).
GSwift7
3.5 / 5 (6) Mar 26, 2013
Perhaps light only appears to fluctuate in speed as vacuum fluctuations cause space and time not to be flat on the small scale


That's along the lines of what I was thinking. If there are planck scale variations in spacetime (a big if), it could cause an apparant variation in C due to the light following a zig zag path from the point of view of an outside observer. That's an important distinction, the outside observer. They are talking about a non-relativistic effect here, if I read it correctly.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) Mar 26, 2013
Isn't there a variable speed of light theory that does away with early inflation to explain the isotropy of the universe?

Maybe when space is "dense" enough it does slow down light, however as I remember the theory it was that c was supposed to in fact be GREATER in the past to account for isotropy rather than slower. Maybe the effect is inverse?

Maybe I'm talking way over my head :P
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (12) Mar 26, 2013
Yet, something as real as life, what it is, and its effect on all things (including measurements and/or observations and/or our understanding) is basically ignored.

It's not ignored. There's an entire science devoted to nothing but life: biology (which literally means "study of life").
This here is the study of vacuum particles which happens throughout the universe. And if you haven't noticed: 99.9999999999 percent of the universe (add a couple of nines to suit your particular taste) is not alive. So dragging your life-is-important shit in here is like people crying about cold fusion research in articles on finger-painting. It's not just off topic - it's full tilt crazy.

Keep your pet peeve to articles that are concerned with your pet peeve, please.
GSwift7
4.5 / 5 (15) Mar 26, 2013
I'm just saying, when the physicists are talking about relativistic or quantum mechanical perspectives or about complementary solutions of black holes, they're actually talking about multiverses already


That doesn't make any sense at all. Complete metaphysical nonsense. 100% pseudo-philosophical jibber-jabber.

And WTF is a multiverse?

You have a real tallent for taking things so far off the rails that it's not even possible to have a discussion about why you don't make any sense. It's like my girlfriend's kid the other day. He asked me "Are zombies really that strong?" after seeing a cartoon zombie on TV. Once I reminded him that zombies are imaginary, the question didn't make any sense, but he still kept talking about his opinion on the subject for a while. I think in the back of your mind you must know that you are speaking about zombies when you prattle on about AWT here, but you keep on going none-the-less.
VendicarE
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 26, 2013
Quite impossible since magnetic fields are fictitious forces that don't exist in the real world.

"The virtual photon-sphere is also believed to comprise the magnetic field however" - Vibrating
VendicarE
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 26, 2013
What do you think makes c less than infinite?

"If there are planck scale variations in spacetime (a big if), it could cause an apparant variation in C due to the light following a zig zag path from the point of view of an outside observer." - GSwift

It is exactly this scattering effect.
GSwift7
4.3 / 5 (12) Mar 26, 2013
So dragging your life-is-important shit in here is like people crying about cold fusion research in articles on finger-painting. It's not just off topic - it's full tilt crazy


Yeah, but I'd actually prefer to hear a pure and openly philosophical tangential as opposed to the AWT or EU nonsense masquerading as real science. At least his life stuff is an actual philosophical topic of debate. AWT and EU don't even make sense as a philosophical argument.

What's even worse than the pure EU and AWT cranks is the hybrid versions of those two theories I see around here so often.
MrVibrating
1.3 / 5 (3) Mar 26, 2013

..vacuum density is also a function of temperature, tho i'm unsure how vacuum itself can /have/ temperature
So we can be sure, you don't know, what you're talking about...


So beyond the hypothetical Unruh effect, how can the vacuum have temperature? And for the bonus question, why does this raise the vacuum density?
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Mar 26, 2013
And WTF is a multiverse?
It's described here. Of course, if you don't know about concepts which I'm talking about here, then you cannot even understand my attempts for explanation of their mutual connections. It's like the attempt to explain Pythagorean theorem to my dog. I can try it, but I cannot succeed with it.
I'd actually prefer to hear a pure and openly philosophical tangential as opposed to the AWT
But this article is just about variable speed of light, which is one of predictions of dense aether model. I talked about it here many times. What does the philosophy of life has to do with it? It may be true or not, but it's off-topic here.
how can the vacuum have temperature?
Try for example this Planck temperature..
MrVibrating
1.3 / 5 (3) Mar 26, 2013
Quite impossible since magnetic fields are fictitious forces that don't exist in the real world.

"The virtual photon-sphere is also believed to comprise the magnetic field however" - Vibrating


Notwithstanding that field and force are somewhat distinct, my bum isn't sinking through this seat so IT at least seems to believe in it. So what might you know about the magnetic force mediator that my derriere doesn't?
VendicarE
3.6 / 5 (5) Mar 26, 2013
Your behind is kept from falling through your seat by electric forces, not magnetic ones.

"Notwithstanding that field and force are somewhat distinct, my bum isn't sinking through this seat so IT at least seems to believe in it."

Magnetism is a fiction that comes from the incorrect assumption that electric field strength does not change with relative velocity.
ValeriaT
2 / 5 (5) Mar 26, 2013
Magnetism is a fiction that comes from the incorrect assumption that electric field strength does not change with relative velocity
Great. What new we can deduce from this insight? IMO all "it's just a fictious force" claims are a pure interpretations and as such untestable/unfalsifiable: you can deduce anything new from science-fiction.
Oversoul 1
1.7 / 5 (7) Mar 26, 2013
@antialias_physorg
There's nothing qualitatively different in the physics/chemistry that we label life than in the rest of nature ... That's all.


That's all, if you don't count with the unknown.
That's all, if you haven't noticed we still don't know everything about the universe/life/existence/reality...
Is phys/chem finalized? Nothing more to discover?
IMHO if this would be true, then the result would be a world with full of man like creatures, and they would do the same things we do, and from the _outside_, all that would look like those are alive, self-conscious things, with free will.
But in reality all that would be only a result of a chem/phys process and nothing more.
And those mans wouldn't be self-conscious like you are, only from outside for the observer.

But you know you exist, you know that you are, and perceive "something".
Even if everything is an illusion, and sometimes it seems like you are unconscious.
Do you believe in your own existence?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (6) Mar 26, 2013
and with this level of sickness in the world it is kind of silly to expect the typical person that kills for enjoyment to take life seriously at all, in anything, after treating it with such disregard
Does the lion enjoy killing his next meal? Of course he does. Are these guys enjoying themselves?
http://www.youtub...Bs74W4ik

-OF COURSE they are. What is it about the activity of securing food do you think we animals find enjoyable? Do you think that all carnivores are SICK?

You are a life denier, a people hater. Thats why you enjoy insulting people here with your brainless poesy. Your pretense is fatuous. Hey look Im being poetic myself.
MrVibrating
1 / 5 (2) Mar 26, 2013
Your behind is kept from falling through your seat by electric forces, not magnetic ones.

Magnetism is a fiction that comes from the incorrect assumption that electric field strength does not change with relative velocity.

The force between charges in motion is magnetic, per SR. According to the standard model it's mediated by virtual photons appropriated from the vacuum. The thing stopping me falling through my chair is the activity of the vacuum.

Lol what, pray tell, do you think mediates electric force?
Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 26, 2013
What's even worse than the pure EU and AWT cranks is the hybrid versions of those two theories I see around here so often.


I almost agree, except distinguishing between the two is like distinuishing between completely batty and totally loopy, and then trying to separate out totally batty.
fmfbrestel
not rated yet Mar 27, 2013
Didn't read all three pages of comments, so not sure if this has been posted already or not, but The Christian Science Monitor had an extremely well written piece on this topic.

"Scientists examine nothing, find something"
http://www.csmoni...omething

Physics journalism at it's best.
DavidW
1 / 5 (7) Mar 27, 2013
antialias_physorg

*You can take your fraudulent self-clicking-promoting stuff and stick it where the sun doesn't shine.*
You are the one that ignores the importance of life and argues this self evident truth.
You are the one that says truth doesn't exist and then changes his mind to call it relative and then throws all observed relativity not fitting your cherry-picking.
You are the one that can't see the forest for the trees.
You are the one that kills life for personal gratification.
You are to one that doesn't care about any life, including your own.
Get a doctor because you are as sick as a human can get. In fact, when your breath stops, it will just be the final note to a life you never had. What a waste of a life and all the blood sweat and tears of generations...all for your ego. You have some serious issues to get clear of.
DavidW
1 / 5 (7) Mar 27, 2013
You state there is no truth, then use the word repeatedly. True hypocrisy rings loud from you.

Everyone sees your mind is broken. I see the truth of the devastation and suffering that you cause and then how you attempt to avoid taking responsibility for it.

I have good reason to question anything you have to say about science or anything else, as you do not hold others and yourself as truthfully equal and are constantly trying to place your own self above the truth.

You have proclaimed that the suffering of life is not truthfully real. That was a big mistake which shows the true level of the sickness within your mind.

A person that ignores truth and life as real has nothing truthful to give.
DavidW
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 27, 2013
Oversoul 1,

I have already been down this road with him. He attempted to place himself above the truth and tried argue that his own life and awareness was not a truthful thing. He's into voodoo to support his lust for blood and needless suffering.

He also attempted to dismiss all truthful suffering on earth as relative, and so it may be dismissed at his own leisure.
DavidW
1 / 5 (7) Mar 27, 2013
This brings us back to the point I was making, which is that with people that are infected with illness just like he is being the general staple in the science field (you know, NEEDLESSLY killing and hurting life for the sole purpose of self-gratification), tossing out truth as if it is a needless card in a deck, we will be wasting time to get the answers we really need to improve life.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 27, 2013
Yeah, but I'd actually prefer to hear a pure and openly philosophical tangential as opposed to the AWT or EU nonsense masquerading as real science.

I german we have a saying: "It's like choosing between regular plague and bubonic plague"

There's nothing wrong with discussing life and whether one feels that it is important or not. But this is an article on vacuum fluctuations and the speed of light for crying out loud. Anyone who feels discussing life regarding this article must be completely out of his mind.

There is also nothing wrong with discussing truth (and whether the notion of truth even makes sense), but again: This is an article on vacuum fluctuations.

I fail to see how it is so hard to distinguish a place where philosophical ramblings are appropriate from one where it is not. So he should stop his trolling and go where his ideas are appropriately in context.
vlaaing peerd
5 / 5 (7) Mar 27, 2013
In Netherlands we have a saying: "not sure if troll or complete idiot..."

The thing is you have to rub your chin (preferably with beard)while contemplating on this.

vlaaing peerd
4.5 / 5 (4) Mar 27, 2013

And WTF is a multiverse?


it's a song where you sing 2 lines or more at once. Apart from that and the fancy AWT tales, the multiverse is a well accepted theory in both QM and M-theory. A quick look on google should provide enough info.
vlaaing peerd
5 / 5 (1) Mar 27, 2013
so we can say safely, both photon, both space-time around it fluctuate (both intrinsic perspective of general relativity, both extrinsic perspective of quantum mechanics remain valid)


Let's keep the photon for what it is and let space-time be the variable, that will make most people happy.

Now tell me again, why would this then be a problem for string theorists?
GSwift7
4.2 / 5 (9) Mar 27, 2013
It's described here. Of course, if you don't know about concepts which I'm talking about here, then you cannot even understand my attempts for explanation of their mutual connections. It's like the attempt to explain Pythagorean theorem to my dog. I can try it, but I cannot succeed with it.


Yeah, and I can look up volumes of information on things like dragons, unicorns, god(s), spirits, ghosts, souls, etc... even peer reviewed science publications.

I know what the definition of a multiverse is. I understand the concept, just like I understand the concept of a soul. That doesn't mean I think it makes any sense to worry about those things.

I think the weak anthropic principle makes a lot more sense than any of the alternatives, so I don't see any value in theorizing about universes with properties different from ours. Such a thing is by definition seperate from our universe and therefore not part of our reality. Our reality is science, others are theology or philosophy
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Mar 27, 2013
Perhaps life and/or truth are really other dimensions, then things like time/distance and math take their rightful place as virtual dimensions within the higher dimension of life. Neither the noise nor the environment for it to exist actually do exist (for any practical real purpose) without life. Like duh!
I see thrashymucchus the driveby rater approves of this sort of muck. Because, you know, it is philosophy.
tossing out truth as if it is a needless card in a deck, we will be wasting time to get the answers we really need to improve life
To improve life we must end the caustic time-wasting of poets and philos like yourself who purport to be investigating truth but who are only enjoying themselves at the expense of others.

Your bullshit has no content. Thats why it is impossible to discuss.
the higher dimension of life
...
Neinsense99
3 / 5 (9) Mar 27, 2013
"In Netherlands we have a saying: "not sure if troll or complete idiot..."
Why not both?
Maggnus
2.3 / 5 (4) Mar 27, 2013
Everyone sees your mind is broken.


Well, not me. His mind seems pretty intact, come to think of it. Even downright together, when you read what he says. Even smart, a compliment which I give grudgingly to any swede. (I'm danish, so we're usually a lot smarter.) (well, my great great great grandfather was a swede, but most people don't hold that against him.)

Your mind now, well, maybe you should go have a nap.
Maggnus
3.4 / 5 (7) Mar 27, 2013
Oops Zephyr, sorry I actually meant to give your last comment here a 5. Not very often I do that, given your usual pseudo-scientific pyscho-babble so I'm mortified I missed.
Q-Star
2.9 / 5 (7) Mar 27, 2013
Everyone sees your mind is broken.


Well, not me. His mind seems pretty intact, come to think of it. Even downright together, when you read what he says.


Oh no, since I can't see it either, does that mean my mind is broken also? And since I usually rate what he says pretty high,,,, my mind must be beyond any repair or rehabilitation.
antialias_physorg
3.4 / 5 (7) Mar 27, 2013
. Even smart, a compliment which I give grudgingly to any swede

As luck would have it you don't have to give that compliment to a swede (I'm from germany ;-) )

As to what DavidW says that I do or think...none of that comes even close.
I have a suggestion for you, David: Never try to analyse someone smarter than you. It doesn't work
DavidW
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 27, 2013
antialias_physorg,

As previously stated on another thread, you have Otto in your camp.

That says it all right there.
vlaaing peerd
not rated yet Mar 28, 2013
"In Netherlands we have a saying: "not sure if troll or complete idiot..."
Why not both?


because in doubt Ockham dictates to assume the latter.
vlaaing peerd
not rated yet Mar 28, 2013
*bla*
testable predictions
*cut* ---->
But you may think about multiverse filled with aether


Quid Multa?
Scryer
1 / 5 (3) Mar 30, 2013
Could the speed of light have a kind of half life? Or maybe not.
Also, 280.
Claudius
1 / 5 (4) Mar 30, 2013
Could the speed of light have a kind of half life? Or maybe not.
Also, 280.


No, 42.

Also, has anyone thought that perhaps sheep's bladders could be employed to reduce vacuum fluctuations?
ckid
not rated yet Mar 30, 2013
Supernova SN 1987A was 168,000 light-years away and had photons and neutrinos that arrived only a few seconds apart, which apparently was fully explained by where in the supernova the photons and neutrinos were created. If the impedance of free space was affected significantly as this article states, wouldn't the light have arrived much later than the neutrinos?

Either that, or this impedance influence is so small that even at 168,000 light-years the effect is so small it has gone unnoticed as an insignificant timing difference.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Mar 30, 2013
The speed of neutrinos is still opened question, because we can detect very energetic and massive neutrinos only (above 2 MeV or so). The lightweight neutrinos could be superluminal easily, but we cannot detect them in this moment.
EyeNStein
1 / 5 (5) Mar 30, 2013
Its expected that lightspeed fluctuates at very small scales. General relativity predicts such changes in close proximity to any particle with mass. (even the virtual particles.)
This is not the only experiment to measure the optical delay noise in a vacuum -Such experiments are key to understanding the vacuum and the particles whos existence it supports.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Mar 30, 2013
General relativity predicts such changes in close proximity to any particle with mass.
Actually it's rather quantum mechanic effect. The quantum fluctuations of vacuum enable the subtle portion of light to escape even from black holes via Hawking radiation. But quantum mechanics attributes the photon the energy content, which should be equivalent to some minute, but observable mass and gravity action. If the photons are massive, then it could wipe out the quantum mechanical effects at the medium scale, because the photons of different wavelength would attract mutually. Therefore the dense aether model predicts, that the variable light speed can be observed only at the relatively small distances and at the larger distances it will disappear again. Which is what it's really observed during gamma ray bursts coming from various distances.
EyeNStein
1 / 5 (5) Mar 30, 2013
Who knows, running the numbers on these experiments to seperate the plausable theories fromm the wacky ones could eventually show how to integrate general relativity and gravity into quantum theory.

ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Mar 30, 2013
In AWT the observable reality at the human distance scales balances the general relativity and quantum mechanics in the same way, like at the most distant observable scales. In real life nothing actually follows the general relativity and quantum mechanics theories: we don't observe any gravitational lensing, neither the quantum wave packets anywhere around us. The quantum mechanics and general relativity theories aren't violated only at the distance scales, at which the observable objects appear like sorta spherical objects (atoms and large stars composed mostly of atoms). Outside of these distance scales the general relativity and quantum mechanics theories are violated less or more heavily.
xel3241
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 30, 2013
In AWT the observable reality at the human distance scales balances the general relativity and quantum mechanics in the same way, like at the most distant observable scales. In real life nothing actually follows the general relativity and quantum mechanics theories: we don't observe any gravitational lensing, neither the quantum wave packets anywhere around us. The quantum mechanics and general relativity theories aren't violated only at the distance scales, at which the observable objects appear like sorta spherical objects (atoms and large stars composed mostly of atoms). Outside of these distance scales the general relativity and quantum mechanics theories are violated less or more heavily.


Don't try to convince people with pseudoscience.
stealthc
1 / 5 (4) Mar 30, 2013
duh.... this is not really a "discovery". Also, if you change the vacuum density you change the speed of light, enabling faster travel (or slower depending which way you go).
charles_ivie_1
not rated yet Mar 31, 2013
One of the most fascinating aspects of this is the possibility that the speed of light is quantized. It would be interesting to devise an experiment that monitored C to a sufficient degree of precision that quantization could be observed. If C fluctuates at a level that is consistent with these observations it would be a significant discovery. A laser interferometer, a long evacuated chamber, and an atomic clock time reference would probably be part of the apparatus. Separating noise from actual data would be a challenge but can probably be done.
Interesting stuff, I love it.
jibbles
not rated yet Apr 01, 2013
"The fluctuations of the photon propagation time are estimated to be on the order of 50 attoseconds per square meter of crossed vacuum"

What?


shouldn't the units be more like speed/volume, i.e. (m/s)/m^3, i.e.
s^(-1)*m^(-2)?
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (4) Apr 01, 2013
Don't try to convince people with pseudoscience
The labeling of ideas as a "pseudoscience" instead of usage of matter-of-fact arguments is indeed pseudoscientific by itself.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Apr 01, 2013
the speed of light is quantized. It would be interesting to devise an experiment that monitored C to a sufficient degree of precision that quantization could be observed
Such an observation has been done already (albeit just indirectly, I admit) : the quantization of the Hubble's red shift.
swordsman
1 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2013
Space also has viscosity. See "Planck's Columbia Lectures", text page 459, equation (1041) which indicates that it is inversely proportional to the speed of light (a very low value). This appears to conform to the existence of particles in a vacuum.
GSwift7
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2013
Space also has viscosity. See "Planck's Columbia Lectures", text page 459, equation (1041) which indicates that it is inversely proportional to the speed of light (a very low value). This appears to conform to the existence of particles in a vacuum


lol, another aether model? Yeah, that's what we need. A quantum aether model.

Weldon Vlasak? Who is that! Can you find a more obscure reference?
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (4) Apr 01, 2013
Weldon Vlasak? Who is that! Can you find a more obscure reference?
The orientation to author instead of idea is a typical characteristics of subjectively thinking people. Such a people usually have no scientific thinking at all - the science is social club for them. BTW Mr. Einstein was only patent officer in the time of his writing of special relativity.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Apr 01, 2013
The aether concept is no mystery: the vacuum is full of tiny space-time curvatures: essentially the same, which are forming the particles of matter. At the human scale these fluctuations compensate mutually - but at substantially larger/smaller distances they don't. After then the approximation of vacuum with particle gas or fluid model becomes relevant. The dense aether model is just extension/generalization of this approach: the particle system becomes a new continuum, which can exhibit another generation of fluctuations at even larger/smaller scale and so on. BTW These distance scales are larger, than the general relativity or quantum mechanics can handle - these theories are already violated at the scales, where the vacuum exhibits the first signs of cohesive properties.
jibbles
not rated yet Apr 02, 2013
so maybe it's like light can borrow speed as long a it happens ephemerrally enough? kinda like virtual particles?