Quantum mavity

It's a very, very odd paper. Formatting and language both look wrong. Problems highlighted so far:

"The quantum vacuum density is given as..."
He's quoted a figure that he hangs an entire paper off, without citing a source for the number or a definition of the concept.

He then uses an absolute mess of classical physics (which does not apply to this) and the odd result from quantum mechanics. By blending the two indiscriminately his results can not apply to anything. Nonetheless, he plots the following graph

29qgvw8.jpg


This is quite amusing. The only two points on that graph we can have any confidence in are the sun and the proton. I particularly like the precise values for the radius of a black hole and of the entire universe. However he disregards that of the proton, leaving him with a single point to draw his line of best fit through.

Table 1 is very odd. Including the raw data in the body of a report is strange, including the data and the logarithm of the data is ridiculous.

Finally he "calculates" the value of the magnetic moment and gets to within an order of magnitude of the accepted value. His conclusion is wonderful. I'm going to quote it here.

We have presented evidence that the proton may be considered as a
Schwarzschild entity and that such a system predicts remarkably well, even under crude
approximations utilizing semi-classical mechanics, its interaction time, its radiation
emissions, its magnetic moment, and even the origin of the strong force as a
gravitational component. We are still examining the fundamental nature of mass,
inertia, charge, magnetism, spin and angular momentum in the context of the Haramein-
Rauscher solution which considers spacetime torque [2]. These aspects are usually
assumed as “given” without a source. Here the coherent structure of the vacuum and its
gravitational curvature begin to give us an appropriate accounting of the energies
necessary to produce these effects.
The Schwarzschild proton strongly suggests that matter at many scales may be
organized by black-holes and black hole-like phenomena and thereby lead to a scale
unification of the fundamental forces and matter.
Click to expand...

I'll try to write a reply to this part once I've stopped laughing
 
Paul11 said:
the original programe on bbc about black holes was fasinating


this one was bit... . wooosh \over the head gesture
Click to expand...

I hate "pop" science, on the one hand it does help make the general public aware of things, but on the other hand it makes them think they are educated on the issue - which is a VERY VERY bad thing
 
dangerstat said:
I hate "pop" science, on the one hand it does help make the general public aware of things, but on the other hand it makes them think they are educated on the issue - which is a VERY VERY bad thing
Click to expand...

Hush, I am an amateur physicist thanks to the bbc :p
 
Last edited:
I'm not fond of popular science either. As an example,

It leads to people stating with absolute authority that we should all use wind power instead of nuclear, cos nuclear is like well scary and wind is all nice, which leads to ridiculous amounts of money being spent on wind farms that the public will like.

On which note, does anyone know offhand how long a wind turbine has to operate for to make back the cost in electricity of making the damn thing in the first place?

I say bring back writing all scientific literature in Latin to prevent the ill educated believing they understand it.
 
As far as I know Quantum mavity is just the placeholder for the theory which will unify mavity with the rest of the quantum forces.

To date, they haven't really been able to come up with much to fill said topic.

Give it 100 years ;)
 
ghost101 said:
No idea how that relates exactly to what the author of the posted paper is talking about, or what it even means. Perhaps it does to you.

Wiki's source for the above value is note 1 here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy#cite_note-0
Click to expand...

His very first calculation uses the value of the quantum vacuum density (I assume he means the energy present in free space due to the uncertainty principle) to work out how much mass their is in the volume of a proton due to the quantum vacuum density. As you have pointed out wiki gives this value as being 10^-12 of an erg per cm^2, or 0.6eVcm^-2, he gives a value equivalent to 2.9x10^126eVcm^-2. A difference of 138 orders of magnitude is ridiculous, and since he doesn't give a source for it have to assume he's made it up.
 
If the universe was once a singularity couldn't it be that its all connected somehow?

Like separateness is more an illusion, matter may be just space twisted up in on its self at the atomic or subatomic level like the video seems to suggest, so you have boundary's and the space between matter is vibrating with noise from the big bang still (virtual particles etc) which is like air pressure that keeps everything apart over short distances, where mavity is the net force from all these subatomic sized black holes, everything wants to fall back into a singularity again but can't as it takes time due to all the noise in the universe, plus its fairly stable at the moment, im just thinking aloud here but what do you think? :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom