Quantum Vacuum Inertia

[UncertainH]

<p>Recently I found this article:</p><p>http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0009036</p><p>which suggests a link between the quantum vacuum and mass and inertia. This article is a little old so I'm wondering if anyone has any opinion on this and knows whether these concepts have evolved further since then?&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

 

[yevaud]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Recently I found this article:http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0009036which suggests a link between the quantum vacuum and mass and inertia. This article is a little old so I'm wondering if anyone has any opinion on this and knows whether these concepts have evolved further since then?&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> </p><p>Posted by <em>UncertainH</em></DIV></p><p>I must say, I do not remember where I had read this, but there was a series of experiments a number of years ago involving the Casimir Effect, in which it was shown that the Effect "quieted down"&nbsp; the quantum fluctuations occurring between the electrically neutral plates, and that in so doing, the value of C was slightly increased, e.g. the Speed of Light was slightly higher.</p><p>All of which, I would think, shows that Inertia is at least partially a property of spacetime itself.</p><p>Dunno if that helps... </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Recently I found this article:http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0009036which suggests a link between the quantum vacuum and mass and inertia. This article is a little old so I'm wondering if anyone has any opinion on this and knows whether these concepts have evolved further since then?&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by UncertainH</DIV></p><p>Interesting article.</p><p>My impression is that the sort of question that you are asking regarding the quantum vacuum&nbsp; would take a real expert in quantum theory to begin to address, and even then the answer would be rather speculative.&nbsp; And by a real expert I mean someone like Steve Weinberg, Gerhard t'Hooft, Edward Witten, ...</p><p>I am no expert on that subject, but you might get a bit of nourishment from reading the appropriate sections of <em>The Road to Reality</em> by Roger Penrose.&nbsp; Penrose is not particularly a quantum field theorist, but he is a true expert in general relativity, extremely knowledgable about theoretical physics in general, and a first-rate mathematician.</p><p>My general impression of the article that you cited is that it is interesting speculation but the authors are in a bit over their heads.</p><p>You might also want to take a look at Feynman's <em>The Feynman Lectures on Physics&nbsp;&nbsp;</em>&nbsp; It is a 3-volume series (I think the relevant section is in Vol. 1) of lectures that Feynman gave to a freshman/sophomore physics class at Cal Tech in the early 1960's.&nbsp; In it there is a discussion of the relationship of the mass of the electron as a result of the self-interaction of the electron charge with the field that is created when it is accelerated.&nbsp; One can explain in that manner, part, and only part, of the observed mass of the electron.&nbsp; I think that idea is similar to what the paper that you cited is discussing, but am not absolutely sure.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[dabiznuss]

Is it true that by assigning acceleration a direction, thats how inertia has come about in physics? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[dabiznuss]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Interesting article.My impression is that the sort of question that you are asking regarding the quantum vacuum&nbsp; would take a real expert in quantum theory to begin to address, and even then the answer would be rather speculative.&nbsp; And by a real expert I mean someone like Steve Weinberg, Gerhard t'Hooft, Edward Witten, ...I am no expert on that subject, but you might get a bit of nourishment from reading the appropriate sections of The Road to Reality by Roger Penrose.&nbsp; Penrose is not particularly a quantum field theorist, but he is a true expert in general relativity, extremely knowledgable about theoretical physics in general, and a first-rate mathematician.My general impression of the article that you cited is that it is interesting speculation but the author's are in a bit over their head.You might also want to take a look at Feynman's The Feynman Lectures on Physics&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; It is a 3-volume series (I think the relevant section is in Vol. 1) of lectures that Feynman gave to a freshman/sophomore physics class at Cal Tech in the early 1960's.&nbsp; In it there is a discussion of the relationship of the mass of the electron as a result of the self-interaction of the electron charge with the field that is created when it is accelerated.&nbsp; One can explain in that manner, part, and only part, of the observed mass of the electron.&nbsp; I think that idea is similar to what the paper that you cited is discussing, but am not absolutely sure. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Actually there is a new book out stating that they did formulate newton's Law F=MA ( which should not be able to be formulated b/c it is a law) It is called the theory of GOD only acouple chapters are interesting but it talks about inertia being connected with the ZPF & ZPE. <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Actually there is a new book out stating that they did formulate newton's Law F=MA ( which should not be able to be formulated b/c it is a law) It is called the theory of GOD only acouple chapters are interesting but it talks about inertia being connected with the ZPF & ZPE. <br />Posted by dabiznuss</DIV></p><p>I don't know who formulated such a law or who wrote that book but:</p><p>1.&nbsp; It is most certainly not NEWTON's law.&nbsp; I belongs to someone else, because Newton said F=dp/dt which reduces to F=ma if and only if mass is constant.</p><p>2.&nbsp; Whoever decided to change the law is WRONG.&nbsp; If he were correct rockets would not operate as we know them to operate.</p><p>Lots of fools own personal computers and therefore can write books.&nbsp; That does not mean that the books are correct, or that that authors know what they&nbsp;are talking about.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Is it true that by assigning acceleration a direction, thats how inertia has come about in physics? <br />Posted by dabiznuss</DIV></p><p>No.&nbsp; Acceleration has a direction because velocity has a direction and acceleration is the time derivative of velocity.&nbsp; Velocity has a direction for rather natural reasons -- when you describe how something is moving you have to specify both how fast it is moving (speed) and the direction in which it is moving.&nbsp; <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[UncertainH]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Interesting article.My impression is that the sort of question that you are asking regarding the quantum vacuum&nbsp; would take a real expert in quantum theory to begin to address, and even then the answer would be rather speculative.&nbsp; And by a real expert I mean someone like Steve Weinberg, Gerhard t'Hooft, Edward Witten, ...I am no expert on that subject, but you might get a bit of nourishment from reading the appropriate sections of The Road to Reality by Roger Penrose.&nbsp; Penrose is not particularly a quantum field theorist, but he is a true expert in general relativity, extremely knowledgable about theoretical physics in general, and a first-rate mathematician.My general impression of the article that you cited is that it is interesting speculation but the author's are in a bit over their head.You might also want to take a look at Feynman's The Feynman Lectures on Physics&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; It is a 3-volume series (I think the relevant section is in Vol. 1) of lectures that Feynman gave to a freshman/sophomore physics class at Cal Tech in the early 1960's.&nbsp; In it there is a discussion of the relationship of the mass of the electron as a result of the self-interaction of the electron charge with the field that is created when it is accelerated.&nbsp; One can explain in that manner, part, and only part, of the observed mass of the electron.&nbsp; I think that idea is similar to what the paper that you cited is discussing, but am not absolutely sure. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Thanks for the suggestions. I'll be asking for those books for Christmas. On further digging I found that at least some of the authors of that paper have more articles along similar lines alot of which can be found at www.calphysics.org. They do say themselves that the force opposing acceleration may contribute to inertia but that other bosonic vacuum fields should also be considered as they only considered EM fields. I can't find the work proceeding much further than that. While these ideas are intruiging often it is hard to tell if something is peer reviewed and submitted by legitimate scientists or just idle speculation. I'll just have to keep digging.</p>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thanks for the suggestions. I'll be asking for those books for Christmas. ..Posted by UncertainH</DIV></p><p>Penrose's book is great even though it weighs a couple of hundred pounds. But, a complete guide to everything wouldn't be lightweight, would it? &nbsp; The Feynman series is outstanding but, if you can't get the whole set due to price, many other Feynman books have excerpts of those lectures in them.&nbsp; "The Character of Physical Law" is an excellent read and is more "booklike" than some derivations of the series.&nbsp; IMO, everything Feynman is good. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Penrose's book is great even though it weighs a couple of hundred pounds. But, a complete guide to everything wouldn't be lightweight, would it? &nbsp; The Feynman series is outstanding but, if you can't get the whole set due to price, many other Feynman books have excerpts of those lectures in them.&nbsp; "The Character of Physical Law" is an excellent read and is more "booklike" than some derivations of the series.&nbsp; IMO, everything Feynman is good. <br />Posted by a_lost_packet_</DIV></p><p>"The Character of Physical Law" and similar "Feynman" books are very good, but they are written for the general puplic and don't have the material on the self-interaction of the photon in them.&nbsp; He does have other "real" physics books, but they are rather advanced (graduate level) and require quite a bit of mathematics.&nbsp; <em>The Feynman Lectures on Physics</em> are not so demanding in the mathematics but are very deep with regard to physics (especially if you read between the lines).&nbsp; If the cost of the 3-volume set is too much, it is possible to get individual volumes of the books in a paperback format.</p><p>In my opinion these books are the very best general physics books ever written, and are well worth the price.&nbsp; If you can't find the 3-volume set or if the cost is too high at the moment then I recommend getting them one volume at a time as circumstances permit.&nbsp; Or borrow them from a library at first.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"The Character of Physical Law" and similar "Feynman" books are very good, but they are written for the general puplic and don't have the material on the self-interaction of the photon in them.&nbsp; He does have other "real" physics books, but they are rather advanced (graduate level) and require quite a bit of mathematics.&nbsp; The Feynman Lectures on Physics are not so demanding in the mathematics but are very deep with regard to physics (especially if you read between the lines).&nbsp; If the cost of the 3-volume set is too much, it is possible to get individual volumes of the books in a paperback format.In my opinion these books are the very best general physics books ever written, and are well worth the price.&nbsp; If you can't find the 3-volume set or if the cost is too high at the moment then I recommend getting them one volume at a time as circumstances permit.&nbsp; Or borrow them from a library at first. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>How about "Q.E.D."?&nbsp; That's fairly inexpensive at $14 or so. (not sure of current price) </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How about "Q.E.D."?&nbsp; That's fairly inexpensive at $14 or so. (not sure of current price) <br />Posted by a_lost_packet_</DIV></p><p>Q.E.D. is the text of a set of lectures that Feynman gave for a general audience.&nbsp; It is, typical of all things "Feynman" very well done.&nbsp; There is a lot there, particularly if you have some scientific background and read between the lines.&nbsp; However, as with some of the other books it is not a "real" physics text in that he does not require any significant mathematics on the part of the reader and does not delve into calculations or get into quantitative implications of the theory.&nbsp; I recommend the book highly as an overview of quantum electrodynamics at a non-mathematical level.&nbsp; Feynman probably had the best understanding of the subject of anyone who is or has ever worked in the field.&nbsp; </p><p>He has another book, <em>Quantum Electrodynamics</em> that is the real thing, but requires a LOT of background in both mathematics and physics.&nbsp; He also has a book called <em>Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals </em>written with Albert Hibbs that is a classic, but is only available as a used book, is extremely expensive, and requires a lot of background.&nbsp; <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>