Momentum & Energy Conservation & Entropy End-Run Conservation Principles assume
a closed system. One can view the Quantum Flux as a high-potential energy
reservoir when it introduces a virtual photon; it can be viewed as a low energy
reservoir when it removes a higher-entropy virtual photon after it has done
work, (which happens all of the time anyway!) From our standpoint it is as
though it is reversing entropy; although, perhaps the Quantum Flux in some
global sense is in fact increasing in entropy.Actually, no device consumes
energy, since no energy can be made (by us) or destroyed; really, devices run
on changes in entropy. Plants and animals locally decrease entropy, at the
expense of increasing entropy, globally.ScottFrom: aethe...@gmail.com
From: aethe...@gmail.com
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 21:27:36 +1200
Subject: Re: [Vo]:mass-energy of virtual photons in our universe
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
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
>
