Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later

Hi Laserlight,

Looking at 9/

There is a mathematical description of a 'wave' which is generally infinitely divisible. By 'no grit in a wave' I was intending to support the view that a 'wave' is (almost by definition) infinitely divisible... hence the inverse square law etc. You have introduced the idea that a wave can only propagate above some limit defined by the medium. What are you suggesting happens below the limit of the medium?

Best wishes,

-C2.

Hi Laserlight, Confused2, Jal, Neil Farbstein, Zephir et al,

A lot of what laserlight and Confused2 are saying is correct. But there are things being said that cannot be supported with our present experimental results. Photons propagate and interfere only with themselves. Sure... the energy of a photon can be changed but only through a particle interaction. A particle interaction "usually" loses the qubit where deep "virtual processes" are occurring such as momentum exchange and spin interactions (also electromagnetic forces which are non-propagative in nature). I am willing to admit some processes "may" be able to transfer the qubit intact even in an interaction. These cannot be "scattering processes".

The absorption of a photon is the reverse process of emission. It is an impulse. I disagree that the basic process is sinusoidal waves since by definition any sinusoidal wave extends to plus or minus infinity. To "clip off" a short segment implies the wave is no longer a pure sinusoid and the 'sinusoid" is now "convolved" with a truncation function. What Confused2 is implying one of two things ... either photons cannot be emitted singly and be absorbed singly (since a single photon has a finite temporal duration) or that a single photon is an infinite wave that has been subjected to a truncation function that only "hides" the full infinite sinusoid. I am willing to negotiate the second state because this is simply 'Wheeler-Feynman Emitter-Absorber Theory".

Denial of the former situation is not acceptable to Confused2 since he has already defended the "coherence" of individual photons which are singly used to build up the interference pattern over time. Many times with that Instrument Webpage he keeps referring us to this feature and I am going to hold him to it (it is not an "optional" feature of the theory of light to be applied one time and not at others). There is no other possibility. I repeat ... "sine waves" do not start and stop by definition. I challenge Confused2 to provide a "wave function" for the sine wave driven photon that applies for all T. Everything in our universe has a beginning and an end and that forces restraints on systems. Of course if we are discussing advanced and retarded waves then there are some factors extra that we are not usually able to see that are needed for interpretation. Otherwise the function that represents a photon by its very nature finite in duration and because it is always a single transition... it is predominantly has only a "core" of 1/2 a wavelength plus a number of other frequencies to confine the packet. Bandwidth of "pulses" are indeed detectable and they exhibit as optical line "broadening". They have all the features of side bands and so on and vary according to the different modes they may be transporting as well. The scale of these features makes it easier to refer to it as having a "spectral width".

Lets not become embroiled in carrier "mediums" because the first question that must be asked is "what is it made of" and I do not think any of us have an adequate description for it. What I can guarantee is it is not a "medium".

Still have an open mind but require more precision in the answers rather than very sloppy imprecise ideas that nobody in any science based discipline will be able to agree upon.

Cheers

There is a mathematical description of a 'wave' which is generally infinitely divisible. By 'no grit in a wave' I was intending to support the view that a 'wave' is (almost by definition) infinitely divisible... hence the inverse square law etc. You have introduced the idea that a wave can only propagate above some limit defined by the medium. What are you suggesting happens below the limit of the medium?

Best wishes,

-C2.

C2,

You are correct. That is exactly what I was proposing. If the potential energy of
the medium is higher than the advancing kinetic energy of the wave, the wave will
dampen until it ceases to propagate, and the energy that it contains will be
absorbed into the medium in some other form such as heat from atomic collisions/
movement of the medium. All waves dissipate and lose energy over distance as
they are transported thru a medium. Even the light energy from the furthest
galaxies has been dissipated over the distances involved. This is probably the
best example of discrete photon wavelet energy, where the wave can not be
divided any further, and all that can be observed is a blurry spot of individual
photons collected over a very long photo exposure. The exposure shows no detail
except the position of the source where it was when the photon was originally
generated, and possibly some doppler color shift.

Regards,
LL

Hi GE,

Do you agree that vacuum (space) has some baseline energy level associated with
it that has been "measured" or at least quantified? The CMB permeates all of
the observable universe as does all of the unabsorbed energy that has been
emitted since energy came into "existence". Is it unfathomable to think that this
background energy IS the medium, and it is this low level energy that
defines the extent and outer "border" of the universe? Logic infers that the
universe is expanding as fast as the energy of which it is comprised. Without an
energy component there is no universal expansion. The universe contains all the
collective energy ever emitted within its confines. I believe that this is
substantiated by the fact that the CMB has "form" as shown in the Wimap plots
and has not completely dissipated. Isn't the CMB considered standing wave
reflections of the "Big Bang"? In order to have standing waves there must be
reflection or "confinement" of energy.

I know the next question, what lies beyond the "borders" of the universe?
..........Beats the sh*t out of me. LOL!

Regards,
LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Feb 5 2007, 05:15 AM

GE,

Perhaps a single photon wavelet can not be emitted without a complementary
counterpart of opposite phasing which is either taking us back to the idea of
quantum entanglement or extra dimensions (lower energy levels). Energy
always "couples" to another form of energy, usually concentrated in matter.
But what happens when you pass an electric field thru a magnetic field?....
You get a displacement component in a vector direction.

The theory of a self propagating EM field, that we have all
seen, and been taught, is "incomplete" because it cannot explain how the
energy continuously and regeneratively self circulates. It is a theory replete with
inconsistencies, that are yet to be fully explained, but as far as it goes...it works.

Wasn't there an experiment or paper that you posted that indicated that
it took a minimum of 4 photons (wavelets) in order for measurement to
be possible? The implications are that 4 wavelets comprise a wavefront that is
regenerative because the wavelets interfere with themselves, creating mutually
regenerative EM fields as they cross couple. Just a thought.....

LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Feb 5 2007, 05:39 AM

C2 and All,

I was thinking about how energy conversion takes place across different media and
came up with this scenario. I think that the concepts can be applied elsewhere.

What happens when you strike a bell, like the kind in a clock tower? A pulse of kinetic
energy radiates thru the atomic structure of the bell at some finite propagation speed
according to the material medium that makes up the bell. The energy pulse continuously
circulates thru the bell and sets up harmonic waves that displace the potential energy
contained in the atomic lattice of the bell. The waves attempt to maintain the energy circulating
thru the body of the bell, but the design of the bell also couples the kinetic wave energy
circulating thru it to the air medium that surrounds it. This coupling of energy to the
air decreases a portion of the wave energy circulating thru the bell over time.

The bell is designed to ring at some harmonic oscillating frequency to produce a specific
amplified tone. The geometric shape and total mass of the bell along with other material
characteristics determines how long that it will ring.

The ringing of the bell is a degenerative release of the original energy applied, that
decays over a period of time which is determined by the amplitude of original energy
pulse, the crystal structure and density of the material of the bell, along with the shape of
the bell. How quickly the bell couples the energy being radiated from it to the air, and
the collective potential energy contained in the atomic structure that is opposing the
waves propagating thru it, determine the ringing decay duration. At some point, the
propagating wave energy decreases to a level that is insufficient to overcome the
steady state potential energy of the atomic structure of the bell and the ringing eventually
stops. All of the energy that was initially applied to the structure of the bell has been
converted to wave energy which has been coupled and propagated away into another
medium, where it dissipates and loses energy over distance according to the ISL.

A bell that is submerged in water will quickly couple its ringing wave energy into the
mass of the water and the ringing will rapidly subside.

A bell that is in a vacuum will not have any physical medium to which it can easily couple its circulating energy, so the energy of the waves will couple to space as heat
over a protracted time period. (this is conjecture on my part but I believe it is correct)

LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Feb 5 2007, 06:38 AM

Hi Laserlight, Confused2, Jal, Neil Farbstein, Zephir et al,

Do not confuse the Casimir Effect as a measure of the Zero Point Energy (ZPG). No evidence of ZPG exists. Sure there is a "little" energy in the form of photons and neutrinos and some other 'stuff" but even if ZPG exists, and is "vast" by some "definition, it remains to be seen that there is any independent "reference" to it. Energy, by it's very definition, has no "absolute" value and so is subject to an arbitrary constant of integration. This is basic to all electromagnetic processes and it is well to understand just what energy really truly is. One of the biggest mistakes of scientists is to believe that "energy" has some absolute value and work from that assumption. This "error" is already seen in many theories and is IMHO a "fatal flaw" to all of them. This is also a flaw in reckoning the Planck Energy and the other "Planck constants".... aside from the one real and true value for Planck Constant itself.

This is "not a good way" to think of energy. It is not an "ocean" and it is not a "sea of potential". Energy is capacity for work and it is ALWAYS in relationship to some other marker and threshold or system. Energy does not flow... you are thinking of something else entirely (light perhaps!).

Electromagnetic fields do not "move" in any classical sense (they "propagate"). They are "frozen in time" and each photon represents an individual event and spread when referred to our reference of time... thus do not "feed" into each other like "currents", or the "surf", or the ebb and flow of tides. It is not going to behave "classically" like "water" or a "gas" and we need to understand that we should not compare "light" to water, we should be comparing water and all "fluids" to light if anything at all and making clear distinctions as to how they differ (and they do). This is not "natural" to humans, we think our internal concepts of the external world are reality. Particles have the experience of time and so they can "move".

Light is the "primitive" material and it appears not to require a medium. I am not trying to criticize but this is where you are not grasping a concept about the nature of energy. The "material" you are actually thinking about is "light" or "photons"... this is not "energy".

"Light" is capable of performing work but light is not simply energy. Not all energy is light either. What you are inferring is a statement like saying that all the matter of the Universe forms a kind of background universal frame of reference. The only difference is you are saying one particular type of "matter"... the bosons... form this background. Sorry... but motion has no absolute yardstick to measure this "Aether" phenomenon and thus we have the Theory of Relativity. We measure what we can when time "flows" and when time does not "flow" we can measure nothing at all. Light itself does not "know" about time and it is the only timeless component in our Universe and, as I see it, is probably the only "stuff" out there aside from "space and geometry" and that time and the most important "content" of all... the information. In the final analysis the "information" content of our Universe is "us". As to the "borders" of our Universe... what about Rindler Foliations? It is highly possible that the blackness out there we see at night is simply that the light may never reach us from some regions of space because it is moving away from us faster than the light from "beyond" can spread toward us.

Umm... sort of (Jal I think).... It was Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri ... His concepts seem to be "different" from my own. That's OK but that statement about a requirement to absorb 4 photons to measure an event is "difficult" since I am uncertain as to what he is calling a single photon because he is describing "divisible photons" ... another difficult concept. A single photon in his context could potentially be a composite of several E = hf quantities. which he regards as "one".

Cheers

PS: Thanks for the cuedos Neil. As far as I can see you are the only one who understands the consequences of those comments.

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Feb 5 2007, 07:47 AM

GE,

I thought that by stating "propagating EM fields" that light would be the logical
interpretation inferred.

Wimap was able to map the temperature and energy flux concentrations of
the visible universe. If that is not an endorsement of primordial background
energy, then the whole program was a big waste of time. Those findings are
still being evaluated as to what the collected information is telling us, but the
implications of the findings are fairly obvious, IMO.

A wave is a wave, is a wave, it is just a matter of scale. I defy you to differentiate
any difference in the wave patterns generated by a wave tank and the DSE.
They both form interference patterns created by wave energy/matter interactions.
Just their scale of operation is different. All waves become conformal to
obstructions in their path, propagate thru a "medium" (is vacuum a medium), can
be divided, transfer energy over long distances, and follow the ISL..... Their
general characteristics appear to follow the same natural"rules", within our
ability to observe and measure the phenomenon.

I think that this is a complete misrepresentation or condescension on your part,
because it most definitely is NOT what I said or inferred. Energy manifests itself
in many different ways as various forms of potential or kinetic energy. Radiating
energy is a form of kinetic energy "transport" that interacts with the potential
energy "stored" in matter. I do disagree on one point.....
light IS simply energy that conveys information, but it is only information
because of our ability to discern the patterns that it represents. Without an
"observer" to interpret pattern recogntion, light is merely energy, in the general
scheme of the universe and it will exist far longer than man will be around to
"appreciate" it.

There is a full spectrum of energy wavelengths permeating space, along with
fundamental particles and matter. I stand by my contention that all of this
ambient background energy is the "aether". If it was not "confined" it would have
dissipated and there would be no structure to the order of the universe.

Look up "medium" in the dictionary. Vacuum is definitely a medium.

Regards,
LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Feb 5 2007, 09:05 AM

Hi Laserlight, Confused2, Jal, Neil Farbstein, Zephir et al,

No condescension intended, maybe I have misinterpreted you though. Remember there is nothing more "condescending" than an elf. ...we are here to taunt you. I guess I will always stand up for a principle of Relativity and almost by definition there cannot be a background "absolute" frame of reference. WMAP is a measure of that background energy distribution.

Light requires energy to "manufacture itself". Therefore photons have potential energy. Everything requires energy to be created, even a hunk of rock. The rock is obviously not energy itself. It can acquire energy by being at the top of a hill or it may "fall from the sky" and relative to the "system" it can give up its fortunate bounty in a one off event. What it seemingly cannot do under normal conditions is convert itself into 100% usable energy. Since the creation of our Universe processes are occurring to reduce the existence of these fortunate accumulations of energy and to liberate this store as chaotic heat.

One example is two rocks one made of matter and another made of anti-matter certainly "stores" energy as we may reckon. Bring them together and they liberate "light" and sufficient "light" concentrated in one place can do an awful lot of work. The energy they can liberate depends on their "mutual" existence not just on the existence of the one. This is a problem, if they are not brought together their "potential" may never be realized. In order to harness the energy of matter in this almost "pure" form we need to currently produce the anti-matter and so without the anti-matter the energy in matter cannot be liberated. The energy is only in relation to each other and currently we are unable to convert matter into anti-matter spontaneously. It has been suggested that if we could move matter into higher dimensions and pass it through a contrived "loop" it may behave in a way similar to turning a glove inside, out converting a left hand glove into a right hand glove (or visa versa) ... in the case of matter to its "mirror image".

We also know that the binding energy of a Nucleus can be liberated and it may convert a small amount of its mass to energy. The trick of creating a chain reaction is required to liberate that stored energy. Not all matter is capable of liberating this kind of energy since it is only available in special unstable elements created during extremely energetic processes in Supernova's.

The most "available" form of energy at our level of technology is that produced by hydrogen fusion (or perhaps other similar processes also involved in star evolution). It is potential energy stored in a special system that can be liberated under favorable conditions. In each and every one of these processes it is not "absolute" energy being released it is energy differences between two separate levels, one being at a naturally elevated condition that can be exploited against another lesser more stable condition.

Our entire society and technology is based mainly on "quantum energy" since we live by the energy of the sun. Zero point energy is one of those interesting concepts that suggest that maybe there is energy stored in a "zero point". This is not all that convincing an argument. There is no more stable condition in our Universe to which energy may descend to tap this "boundless source". Some ingenious devices may be able to harness energy in processes which are transient but as far as we can ascertain there is not a lot of energy in them to be had. These seem to be "Maxwell's Daemon" processes. All in all they are all "systems" and not absolute levels. Even photons suffer this process too. The relative motion of sources of light can change the perceived frequency of radiation providing more or less energy depending on the relative velocity between the systems. In the "rest frame" of the photon there is no energy to be had at all yet the photon has energy relative to other "moving" systems.

I do not accept that all waves are the same. I also do not accept that material analogs are examples of "simple waves" in the manner you suggest. If light is "simply energy" how can it manifest in all those different forms and even behave as if it was proto-matter. I doubt very much that "matter" is an explanation of anything and that "waves" are the underlying explanation. For every particle there is probably a frame of reference in which the particle has no rest mass and so has no energy so to speak. De Broglie's Matter Wave theory suggests just this. In a particle's own frame of reference the wavelength is infinite and thus contains "no energy" of the E = hf variety. To be an "observer" insists that the observation must be made from a frame of reference at least slightly different from the rest frame that is being observed. This "difference" is the energy.... by definition.

... the de Broglie wavelength and...
E = hf
C = fλ
E = hC/λ
... where...

... is the de Broglie frequency (and the low velocity "end" of Special Relativity)

This result is simply because all measurement must be related to some "reference" (the observer) and this "energy" cannot be "absolute". This has implications for any regions that are "null".

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Feb 5 2007, 03:16 PM

A bit off topic but related to some of the atomic level discussions that we have
had recently. Watch the movie of gold atoms being "assimilated"(diffused) into the
atomic matrix in real time. The substrate film atomic matrix realigns itself to
accomodate the gold atoms and then assumes a modified atomic "steady" state.

http://www.physorg.com/news89895771.html

http://virtuallab.nano.tudelft.nl/movies/audis/

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Feb 5 2007, 09:14 PM

Hi Laserlight,

Sorry... but that is not good enough for a scientific discussion. pertaining to a common dictionary is not evidence of scientific accuracy. If this is a Principle in Physics then you need to establish this quite unequivocally. I know what some say about this Dirac Sea but there is no real evidence for it at present.

Here is Websters Dictionary Definition of Vacuum:

No mention that a Vacuum is actually a "medium" as such.

I do not see any direct evidence implying that the vacuum is a "medium" (as in an Aether type medium as you have stated) ... It may support virtual processes but that is an entirely different story... those transient virtual processes are clustered around the "bits" that are not the vacuum. The virtual particles are appearing and disappearing "near" to the real particles. The structure and order in the Universe occur in the vacuum and this is independent of an "Aether" as I see it could you show some definitive proof where it can be proven to be a "medium", and what kind of "medium" it is a carrier for... if you mean light, I would have to disagree. This interpretation would be too materialistic and not based on any basic "material". I would agree that empty space is "something" and it contains properties that make our existence possible but light is that something requiring a non-material something and not an Aether. Is there anything here you can identify as your "Aether"??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether
It is annoying to see a word "abused" to mean something which has no definition like the word "God" for instance and being defined as something that is not part of Creation yet still existing. Now we have the "God" ofthe gaps and it would seem Aether is a spiritual substance that is also not part of creation that cannot have any verifiable "nature".

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Feb 6 2007, 07:22 AM

Good Day!
If anyone is interested in calculations you can look at my thread or
http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2006/05/m...ngth-scale.html
The Minimal Length Scale
jal

GE,

I think the argument is about the nature of space.
Vacuum, as I see it, is just a quantification of space as it relates to matter and
is not the issue that we are arguing about.

What do you call the space that exists between the nucleus of an atom, its electron
swarm, and the space between atoms? Isn't it referred to as a vacuum? True,
there is no physical "matter" there but do you agree that there are EM energy
fields that manifest themselves due to charge interactions in that "vacuum" area?
The definition of vacuum implies the absence of matter....it says nothing about the
presence or absence of fields, forces, or energy, and does not exclude them since
they are not considered physical "entities", but neither does it preclude their
existence in the vacuum of space.

Space has energy entropy, this corresponds my energy argument and Zephir's
"foam".

You have stated repeatedly your belief in "trans-dimensional" coupling as the
method of photon propagation in free space... I disagree and say that
space contains a form of energy that allows for the cross coupling of photon EM fields,
which allows them to propagate thru it via that interaction. I will present some
argument to support that contention. Space is the antithesis of matter,
the ying vs. yang, and have complementary, or reciprocal energy, components.

Our disagreement stems from the interpretation of what exactly is the nature and
properties of the vacuum of space. Is the vacuum of space "nothing"? I say
it is merely the absence of matter, but that there is energy contained within
it. To illustrate my contention I will introduce some natural effects that are
"observed" in the vacuum of space. It has been theorized/proven that space and
time can warp in the presence of intense gravitational fields, however the vacuum
component remains constant in that warp area. If the spacetime continuum that
exists in vacuum can be "warped", then it must have some measurable and
characteristic energetic properties that have yet to be fully identified and
quantified.

If gravity can be quantified or defined as "the localized displacement of energy caused by proximity to the potential energy contained in the density of mass",
then what is the nature of the energy that the matter is displacing? It is not
charge related, it is not a "physical" (touchable) entitiy, it is a mutually attractive
force that is proportional to the masses acting on each other. Gravity
"conducts" across the medium of the vacuum of space.

In order for space and time to "warp" or deform, relative to unaffected space,
there must be some energy "corollary" that can describe their relationship and that
can quantify the energetic measurement of the "degree" of warp.

Do you agree that vacuum has dielectric qualities and has permittivity characteristics? I think you must since these are considered "baseline" references
for electrical field theory (along with susceptibility).

The speed of light c is constant in the vacuum of space, regardless of the frequency
and energy of the type of photon that is propagating across some fixed distance.
There is also a time delay constant associated with c that corresponds to the
speed at which light propagates across that fixed distance. I agree that time is
only relevant to the observer and not to the photon, but this gets back to my
prior post/argument that a photon is merely energy, which can be manifest at
different levels relative to some external frame of reference. Energy exists
across an entire spectrum that we can measure, but can we detect energy that
exists outside of our frame of refereence?

The definition of a "medium" is:

I see nothing that excludes vacuum or space in that general definition. Vacuum is
merely the absence of matter, that does not infer that forces and energy cannot
exist there or propagate thru the space that it encompasses.

Some other observations/discussion to support my argument regarding an energy
component that permeates the background "fabric" of space...

Light and energy dissipate into the vacuum of space over distance, according to
the ISL. That means that photonic energy diffuses into space over distance, and
the energy is exponentially distributed and diminishes over time and distance.

If space is not a medium which conducts light and energy then how does
light and EM energy "couple" to space from some originating source?

Argument 1:
According to EM transmission theory there must be impedance matching in order
for EM radiation to transmit (admittance) energy between two different media,
that have different electrical characteristics, without distortion or transfer losses.
So a radiating EM source has to electrically "match" to the medium into which it
will be radiating its output energy.

Argument 2:
When thermal or photon energy radiates into space it is eventually absorbed over
some great distance that corresponds to the ISL. At some relative time the
thermal energy (contained in photons) reaches some steady state temperature
ambient level, but it is never totally "destroyed". Space never reaches absolute
zero, as far as we know. According to the first law of thermodynamics, "Energy can not be destroyed, it just changes form. If it can't be destroyed, what happens to it as it
approaches absolute zero, does it stop propagating as the distributed energy
reaches the "potential energy" of space? (Remember my bell analogy!)


ref. Wikipedia

Zeroeth Law of Thermodynamics:

comment:

The 1st Law of Thermodynamics:

That infers that the universe is a closed set, all energy contained within must
stay within.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics:

Comment:

Third Law of Thermodynamics:

comment:

LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Feb 7 2007, 02:28 AM

Hello GE and All,

I would like to explore the idea of “Zero Point Energy” (ZPE) and how it relates to
vacuum energy and my argument for the idea of a threshold background level that
is present in space.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

In order to set the stage for my argument I offer the following simplified overview of
the concept of threshold voltage level.

Some electronic circuits use what is called a baseline reference voltage. This voltage is
considered to be “zero” volts and represents floating“ ground”, or a circuit ground.
However, “zero” volts in this configuration is only relative when measured between
elements of the circuit and the power supply of that circuit.

The zero “reference” is not necessarily really zero volts when referenced to earth ground
with a voltmeter and may be floating at some very high level, relative to true earth
ground. If you were to measure between two floating circuit “grounds” that are both not
tied to earth ground, a voltage difference (delta) would be measured between them.

This baseline reference voltage is an operating point, a “bias” voltage level of operation. This bias voltage allows certain kinds of electronic components to rapidly switch or
detect a fast changing or very small signal level quickly, so they are not missed. It can be
considered a sensitivity adjustment where the electronic component is operating just
below the gain threshold of operation, or the point of turning on.

Transient (temporary) signals “ride” on this baseline reference voltage and can be
detected on a properly set up oscilloscope as moving or stationary voltages, depending upon the circuit design. With this technique micro voltages can be detected down to the
sensitivity of the “noise” generated by atomic collisions and EM field interactions. At
that low “noise” point it becomes impossible to discriminate (separate) lower voltage
signal levels and the signal is considered statically saturated, or in the noise level.

I am proposing that a similar phenomenon of “zero point energy”, the energy threshold
level, permeates the vacuum of space and contributes to EM propagation.

A background noise energy level has been detected by radio telescopes to exist everywhere in space, and is considered to be the residual signature of microwave
radiation that was released according to the theory of the Big Bang. The WMAP satellite
was launched to map this pervasive background energy

According to Wikipedia,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMAP

From Wikipedia on Zero Point Energy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy
This is enough to stimulate further discussion, for now.
LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Feb 7 2007, 06:18 AM

A possible way to analyse things..
Imagine you are in an alien spaceship. There are lots of dials and knobs and things to push and pull and none of them are marked in a language that we understand. Unless we are allowed to take the thing to pieces (we aren't) then all we can do is press buttons and turn the knobs until something happens.
Press the first button .. nothing happens so move on to the next. The next button vents the atmosphere into space so we make a note not to press that one again. After many tries we find one that starts the engine, we then (quite quickly) need to find out how to steer the thing If a button has no effect on our speed or direction of motion then we ignore it and move on to the next.
Let's look at vacuum energy in the same way. We're told it is something to do with quantum harmonic oscillators .. and quantum harmonic oscillators have something to do with Planck's constant. Good Elf reminds us that the energy and frequency and lots of other stuff about photons is also linked to Planck's constant. Let's fiddle about with the controls until we find the one that sets Planck's constant. Assuming we find the Planck's constant control before we switch either ourselves or the universe off .. try setting it to zero. Does the electromagnetic wave equation change? Does it make photons 'go away'? .. etc.
Best wishes,
-C2.