If light exerted a negative pressure on certain materials you would have a violation of the laws of motion and with it the conservation of energy as you could make a device that produces thrust from emitting and reabsorbing the same light.
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 7:19 AM, Wm. Scott Smith <scott...@hotmail.com>wrote: > Just calculating the energy density of a single wavelength appears to give > us infinite mass-energy at a point as the particle size approaches zero. > John Wheeler pointed out that one cannot *physically *go smaller than the > planck length for a wavelength size, because the Universe would collapse > into a giant black hole at these neutron-star type mass-energy densities. > > Cosmologically speaking, others worry that allowing wavelengths that are > quite a bit larger than that would make the universe expand out of control. > Now I don't know if somehow these two considerations balance each other out. > All I know is that ZPE proponents have argued that very small wavelengths > exist, but are somehow gravitationally neutral or that their Gravitational > attraction "wears out" as we consider ever-smaller sizes. I have heard that > "around" the size where the em wavelengths are strong enough to explain the > Strong Nuclear Force, is "about" where a runaway inflation of the Universe > is no longer a concern. > > Personally, I don't think that runaway inflation is a problem to this > model, because I think that gravity is *caused *by these smaller > wavelengths. Recent papers in advanced optical theory have calculated that > ordinary light can exert a negative pressure on certain materials. Perhaps > the reverse could also be true: that some kinds of light can exert negative > pressure on ordinary matter. At this level of consideration, one would have > to think of Energy, momentum, inertia and gravity as forces that are > "informing" matter where to go and how fast. > > Scott > > > > Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 13:37:46 Scott0500 > > From: svj.orionwo...@gmail.com > > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > > Subject: [Vo]:What is the aggregate mass of virtual particles in our > universe > > > > These are follow-up questions, and the questions posed are very much > > related to my previous subject thread: "A Third Way." > > > > It's my understanding that certain types of subatomic virtual > > particles possess mass, such as fermions, electrons, positrons, etc... > > It's also my understanding virtual particles are no different than > > real particles - only that their existence in our universe is > > fleeting. Nevertheless, I gather there are circumstances (which > > includes special experiments that have been conducted) where the > > fleeting nature of virtual particles can be disentangled in such a > > manner that causes their fundamental nature to become permanent in our > > universe. > > > > I could be wrong on this point but I get the impression that the > > universe as it, how shall I put it... -quantum fluctuates- produces a > > LOT of virtual particles, this despite the fact that individually > > speaking their life spans are exceedingly short. Nevertheless this > > suggests that at any moment in time, the aggregate total mass of all > > of these virtual particles could turn out to be a LOT. This begs > > several questions... > > > > Could the aggregate total mass of all these virtual particles account > > for some of the dark matter detected in our universe? Better yet, has > > this premise already been questioned and pursued by scientists and > > physicists? Due to the fact that individual virtual particles exist > > ever-so briefly in our universe, they would NEVER EVER get the chance > > to clump up into physical objects like planets, stars, and such. The > > mass of virtual particles would just sort of suddenly hang around in > > certain areas of the universe and remain frustratingly undetectable. > > > > This has also let me to wonder whether r if "quantum fluctuations" DO > > vary in different areas of the universe, thus producing more virtual > > "mass" than in other areas... there would seem to be more "dark > > matter" detected in certain areas of the universe than in other areas. > > If so, what circumstances would produce an increase in quantum > > fluctuations in these areas of the universe. > > > > In conclusion, I'm speculat'in here that... state changes in various > > types of elements (and/or alloys) as they transition back and forth > > between crystalline solids and that of a liquid might also possibly > > account for an increase in certain kinds of quantum fluctuations, > > which in turn results in an increase in sub-atomic particle > > generation, as well as additional mass. > > > > Inquiring minds want to know. ;-) > > > > Regards > > Steven Vincent Johnson > > www.OrionWorks.com > > www.zazzle.com/orionworks > > >
