A Theory on Innate Movement being due to Vacuum Pressure

[Singularitarian]

In a dense liquidic solution, whether being very dense or not very dense, exerts a (uniform - if in the center of a gravitational field) pressure on a materials surface that are submerged. So if you submerged a marble in a bowl of water, the pressure of the water when submerged will be tense upon the surface of the object.

I now speculate the nature of spacetime, and treat it as being fluidlike; in many ways it is fluidic, as matter distorts spacetime round it and drag it with it, much like the viscosity of water drag. I wonder about a particle being being akin to a system submerged in a dense fluidlike system, where the particle is affected by a pressure exerted on it equally because of the energy density of the vacuum.

Wouldn't such a force exerted on particles not try and locate particles to a specific area of spacetime and make its momentum even more uncertain?


Scientists like mathematician and prof. john barrow, believes the energy density of the universe affects the motion of matter (just like a drag force) is not in fact zero, as Einstein had believed. In fact, the Casimir Force has been proven experimentally, and just recently, a positive Casimir Force has been detected by changing the experimental plates to one being made of silicon. So, as many scientists keep roporting - it seems that the Dirac Sea correctly predicts hidden virtual particles that are in the vacuum interacting with real matter under \Delta E \Delta t > 1/2 the uncertainty in energy and time, which allows a particle to pop into existence with an undefined energy, allowing superluminal properties.

So the force exerted on a system in this vacuum, will be analogous to the system in the fluid, as there will be a density of force applied on the surface of the said system. So the force acting homogenously over it is by definition the vacuum energy.


the Reynolds-Number would hold a particular role perhaps; or maybe even the structure of Reynolds-Number would hold some essential key to it all. For instance, a system with a velocity can have a relationship with density given as:

R_e= \frac{\rho vR^2}{\mu}

Of course, i would imagine that we could only approximate the given force of density on the surface area of a particle, indeed if it has one.


From a little work, and a little time involving some research and calculations, it would seem not only could you derive a drag force of a particle through a fluidic like system (i.e. the vacuum) with the followig equation, but also derive the pressure exerted on the surface area of the system, knowing the relationships between pressure and density, then we could have:

F_d \frac{1}{2} atv= \frac{1}{2} \rho Au^2 f_c (R_e) \frac{v}{t} \frac{1}{2} at^2 C_d

This is the famous drag equation, with only one tweak i made, and that was by applying the dimensions or acceleration times distance making a vector product i was allowing to leave in the equation, because we may (by the choice of whoever desires to look for the following), want to calculate a total density over some given distance, and then integrate it with respect to velocity. However, mocing on, one also knows these dimensions are not necesserily needed, so it can reduce to:

F_d = \frac{1}{2} \rho Au^2f_c(R_e)C_d

The importance of this equation, is that it take into respects the main conditions scientists believe causes the friction, even though, last time i checked, any drag equation has a flaw that hasn't been rectified, and that being all the natures of whatever causes drag is not fully understood. is the drag coefficient, which i am sure our resident physicist Ben has heard of, as it measures the drag of a system mathematically, and can be applied as a dimensionaless figure. is the surface area of the object, and is the speed, which then , which is the density of the surrounding system of the said object (Again, knowing the relationships behind pressure and density - i am happy to matehmatically show these relationships) in which again, this specific energy density within the current logical assumptions i feel i have made so far, would then be nothing but the general density of the virtual particles in the vacuum, or the vacuum density for short. So here we are using the equation to calculate the drag force of a system moving through the density of the vacuum, with an exerted force in the direction of a vector.


More analytically and formally related to the reasonable assumptions I have made on whether the electron has a surface area (albeit as small as it would be), and also assuming a classical view that it would have an area that would move in a given direction, I calculate the following:

\vec{F} = \sum P \vec{n} A= \delta \vec{Pn}dA

So if an electron, indeed all particles have a surface area, and if the laws of physics concerning the energy density of the universe does indeed interact with the momentum of quantum objects, the force of pressure exerted on the system will exist as it moves through it, and ‘’ploughs’’ through it with a force of drag.

So not only is a drag force existent in the movement of particles through the fluidic universe, but the energy pressure of the universe must have profound implications of the uncertainty principle in regards to the particles position, since pressure would define that position. Might this be why particles have an innate property of force/movement, for you can never slow down a particle to zero-temperatures.

[Molinaro]

What do you mean by in the centre of a gravitational field? How close to the centre? Isn't the object creating the field the only thing in the centre?

[Singularitarian]

We are measuring this pressure exerted on a particle in a uniform gravitational region. Because liquidic solutions vary with depth from the bottom is analogous to a particle varying in a different field strength. Varying field strengths, such as the energy density of the entire universe act upon particles with mass, which seems to indicate inertia could be the product of the presence of an electromagnetic coupling with the system moving through spacetime.

The unform state in important, because we are exampling a uniform ditribution of pressure on the surface of a particle.

[~enigma~]

What do you mean by in the centre of a gravitational field? How close to the centre? Isn't the object creating the field the only thing in the centre?
Doubt he means anything cause his writing seems like some kind of scientific word based algorithm run amok.

[ben m]

Might this be why particles have an innate property of force/movement, for you can never slow down a particle to zero-temperatures.

Particles do not have an "innate property of force/movement", whatever that means.

Temperature is a statistical property; there is no meaning to the statement "slow down a particle to zero temperature". (Ignoring the thermal density-matrix business Sol kindly explained to me in another thread)

The reasons that systems cannot be lowered to zero temperature has nothing to do with "innate" properties, and rather has to do with the statistical limitations of moving heat and entropy from one system to another.

[Ziggurat]

In a dense liquidic solution, whether being very dense or not very dense, exerts a (uniform - if in the center of a gravitational field) pressure on a materials surface that are submerged.

You do know that liquids can be at zero and even negative pressure, don't you?

So if you submerged a marble in a bowl of water, the pressure of the water when submerged will be tense upon the surface of the object.

Bad grammar.

Wouldn't such a force exerted on particles not try and locate particles to a specific area of spacetime and make its momentum even more uncertain?

No.

Scientists like mathematician and prof. john barrow, believes the energy density of the universe affects the motion of matter (just like a drag force) is not in fact zero, as Einstein had believed.

More bad grammar. And under such a model, there should be an observable locally preferred reference frame. No such reference frame has ever been detected.

In fact, the Casimir Force has been proven experimentally

And the theory which correctly predicts the Casimir force doesn't resemble anything you've said in this post.

it seems that the Dirac Sea correctly predicts hidden virtual particles that are in the vacuum interacting with real matter under \Delta E \Delta t > 1/2 the uncertainty in energy and time, which allows a particle to pop into existence with an undefined energy, allowing superluminal properties.

Um, no. I don't think you understand what the energy-time uncertainty relationship actually is. It's often given as a hand-waving explanation of virtual particles, but that's not actually how it works.

So the force exerted on a system in this vacuum, will be analogous to the system in the fluid, as there will be a density of force applied on the surface of the said system. So the force acting homogenously over it is by definition the vacuum energy.

No. Force and energy are not the same thing. And the whole point of the Casimir effect is that the force is not homogeneous - if it were, then you couldn't observe any effect.

From a little work, and a little time involving some research and calculations, it would seem not only could you derive a drag force of a particle through a fluidic like system (i.e. the vacuum)

Which again runs into the reference frame problem. Sorry, that's a show-stopper.

Might this be why particles have an innate property of force/movement, for you can never slow down a particle to zero-temperatures.

No. The 3rd law of thermodynamics has no connection to your model.

[Uncayimmy]

Sorry, but fluidic space is by definition not at all like a vacuum.

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Fluidic_space
Fluidic space is a realm located in another dimension, consisting entirely of matter in a fluid state, rather than a vacuum, and accessible only through the creation of an interdimensional rift using quantum singularities. The fluidic realm has no stars or planets, and the only lifeform known to exist there is Species 8472.

[Singularitarian]

Doubt he means anything cause his writing seems like some kind of scientific word based algorithm run amok.

Well, if you understood that gravities strength decreases from the center of a gravitational field is an analogous to a fluid medium.

If you caught that, your statement would not seem so wrong.

[Singularitarian]

Sorry, but fluidic space is by definition not at all like a vacuum.

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Fluidic_space

Different Fluidic Theory. I am quite aware of that theory you have shown. But in a discussion with a PhD it could not be argued from my analysis that it certainly has relations to fluidic systems to that of the general momentum of objects through spacetime.

Since spacetime has a pressure given by relativity, my work imposes the question of a stress on the quantum object, uncluding the essential drag equations, the kind found in fluidic systems.

Go learn this latter part please.

[Singularitarian]

You do know that liquids can be at zero and even negative pressure, don't you?



Bad grammar.



No.



More bad grammar. And under such a model, there should be an observable locally preferred reference frame. No such reference frame has ever been detected.



And the theory which correctly predicts the Casimir force doesn't resemble anything you've said in this post.



Um, no. I don't think you understand what the energy-time uncertainty relationship actually is. It's often given as a hand-waving explanation of virtual particles, but that's not actually how it works.



No. Force and energy are not the same thing. And the whole point of the Casimir effect is that the force is not homogeneous - if it were, then you couldn't observe any effect.



Which again runs into the reference frame problem. Sorry, that's a show-stopper.



No. The 3rd law of thermodynamics has no connection to your model.

1) The negative value is of no immediate consequence to the discussion, so please remain on track.

2) Don't care about the forum grammer mafia who have nothing better to do.

3) Yes, it seems it would. The pressure exserted unformly over the surface of the particle would turn into a force of pressure on its location in space.

4) This part has nothing to with what i said. It refers to the cosmological energy density of the universe which Einstein had a value o 1 or 0. Keep up.

5) I am getting annoyed now. Does anyone here know anything about physics? The uncertainty of energy allows virtual particles to pop out of the vcuum and movefaster than light. Do you want a reference to this well-known fact?

6) - I never said force and energy are the same. I am saying the energy in the vacuum has a pressure which is a force -ok?

7) - I give up, you know nothing about the physics i am talking about, and i feel even if i taught you the basics, you would still be adament i am talking ****. Have it your way, but i am not here to fool anyone, and anyone with any degree in physics would have known that instinctively.

[Singularitarian]

Particles do not have an "innate property of force/movement", whatever that means.

Temperature is a statistical property; there is no meaning to the statement "slow down a particle to zero temperature". (Ignoring the thermal density-matrix business Sol kindly explained to me in another thread)

The reasons that systems cannot be lowered to zero temperature has nothing to do with "innate" properties, and rather has to do with the statistical limitations of moving heat and entropy from one system to another.

Actually, a particle is never a rest, so there is an innate force inherent within them that always keeps them on the move. This is what the zero-point energy field explains; that matter cannot be brought to absolute zero and expect no energy or tempeture related to motion to cease. Movement and energy is even found if you could freeze the vacuum to absolute zero, and this invalidates the ret of your points.

Ever heard of zero-point motion?

[Pixel42]

Different Fluidic Theory. I am quite aware of that theory you have shown.
So am I, having seen the episode of Star Trek: Voyager it features in. And despite being technobabble made up by television SF writers, it makes a good deal more scientific sense than you do.

[Ziggurat]

2) Don't care about the forum grammer mafia who have nothing better to do.

You should. Your bad grammar is a serious impediment to understanding, because you keep saying things that make no sense because of grammar mistakes.

3) Yes, it seems it would. The pressure exserted unformly over the surface of the particle would turn into a force of pressure on its location in space.

This is physics. Precision in terminology is important. "force of pressure" is meaningless: force and pressure are two different quantities. And what is the consequence of a force (or a pressure) on a "location in space"? Nothing.

4) This part has nothing to with what i said.

Oh, but it most certainly does.

5) I am getting annoyed now.

Quit whining and learn to deal with it.

Does anyone here know anything about physics?

Yes, lots of people.

The uncertainty of energy allows virtual particles to pop out of the vcuum and movefaster than light.

That's what you're claiming the energy-time uncertainty principle does. But it is not a statement about what the energy-time uncertainty principle is, which is what I suggested you didn't know.

Do you want a reference to this well-known fact?

References are always handy. Preferably a technical one, because physics articles aimed at a lay audience frequently misrepresent the actual physics in the process of dumbing it down to a level where it can be (mis)understood.

But let me give you a reference of my own in this regard, from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics", by Griffiths (2nd ed), page 118:
"It is often said that the uncertainty principle means energy is not strictly conserved in quantum mechanics - that you're allowed to "borrow" energy $\Delta E$, as long as you "pay it back" in a time $\Delta t \approx \hbar/(2 \Delta E)$; the greater the violation, the briefer the period over which it can occur. Now, there are many legitimate readings of the energy-time uncertainty principle, but this is not one of them." (emphasis mine).

6) - I never said force and energy are the same.

Oh, but you did. You said "So the force acting homogenously over it is by definition the vacuum energy." That may not be what you meant, but if not, then this is a perfect example of why your bad grammar is relevant.

I am saying the energy in the vacuum has a pressure which is a force -ok?

The energy creates a pressure, and the pressure applied to an area can create a force. But the pressure is not a force. If you didn't mean that, then your bad grammar has struck again.

7) - I give up, you know nothing about the physics i am talking about,

You've got no idea what physics I know. You just don't like being called out on the fact that your writing is incoherent. But that's really not my fault.

Have it your way, but i am not here to fool anyone, and anyone with any degree in physics would have known that instinctively.

Argument from authority. And how do you know which posters do or don't have degrees in physics anyways?

[Ziggurat]

This is what the zero-point energy field explains; that matter cannot be brought to absolute zero

Nope. The ground state you refer to would indeed be zero temperature, because zero temperature does not mean zero motion or zero energy. The 3rd law of thermodynamics (which is the law which precludes absolute zero) has no connection to zero-point energy. You clearly don't have a clue about thermodynamics.

and expect no energy or tempeture related to motion to cease.

Temperature is a statistical property related to energy and entropy, both of which involve more than just motion. Temperature is zero if you reach the ground state, even if motion remains in the ground state.

[Uncayimmy]

Different Fluidic Theory. I am quite aware of that theory you have shown. But in a discussion with a PhD it could not be argued from my analysis that it certainly has relations to fluidic systems to that of the general momentum of objects through spacetime.

Since spacetime has a pressure given by relativity, my work imposes the question of a stress on the quantum object, uncluding the essential drag equations, the kind found in fluidic systems.

Go learn this latter part please.

Okay...you do realize what I posted was make-believe from a TV show, right?

[~enigma~]

Okay...you do realize what I posted was make-believe from a TV show, right?
You mean from his/hers/it's program algorithm.

[Sideroxylon]

Okay...you do realize what I posted was make-believe from a TV show, right?

Looks like you caught yourself a troll there.

[wackyvorlon]

Posted nearly verbatim here as well:

http://www.thescienceforum.com/A-Quantum-Theory-17254t.php

EDIT: I want to quickly mention - before questioning Ziggurat's knowledge of physics, you might want to ask him his qualifications. Unless I'm mistaken, I recall mention of him previously being employed by Fermilab to help code software for one of their detectors. There are some scary smart people on this forum, in truth.

[Singularitarian]

Posted nearly verbatim here as well:

http://www.thescienceforum.com/A-Quantum-Theory-17254t.php

EDIT: I want to quickly mention - before questioning Ziggurat's knowledge of physics, you might want to ask him his qualifications. Unless I'm mistaken, I recall mention of him previously being employed by Fermilab to help code software for one of their detectors. There are some scary smart people on this forum, in truth.

But he argues there is no innate force of movement which is intrinsic to every known particle, nor is he aware that the freezing the vacuum to absolute zero does not imply a complete ceasing of movement (and if he really is a scientist), then he would also know that half the energy of a quantum oscillating sytem at zero-point energy still has a movement. He has however not been able to reconcile the theory of heat, nor has he reconciled the theory of kinetic energy which imposes temperature in objects as the particle constituents increase with speed. He therefore says there is no connection between temperature and movement

which is clearly wrong.

So temperature as related to the heat/energy is ever zero, because there is a still a massive amount of energy resident even in the theory which should include a motionless state.... For a scientist, i can tell this is not his major area of research.

[Singularitarian]

To Zig:

P.s. The temperature of the vauum can never reach an absolute zero-temperature due to half of the energy of the system remining. Another mistake you made.

[Singularitarian]

You should. Your bad grammar is a serious impediment to understanding, because you keep saying things that make no sense because of grammar mistakes.



This is physics. Precision in terminology is important. "force of pressure" is meaningless: force and pressure are two different quantities. And what is the consequence of a force (or a pressure) on a "location in space"? Nothing.



Oh, but it most certainly does.



Quit whining and learn to deal with it.



Yes, lots of people.



That's what you're claiming the energy-time uncertainty principle does. But it is not a statement about what the energy-time uncertainty principle is, which is what I suggested you didn't know.



References are always handy. Preferably a technical one, because physics articles aimed at a lay audience frequently misrepresent the actual physics in the process of dumbing it down to a level where it can be (mis)understood.

But let me give you a reference of my own in this regard, from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics", by Griffiths (2nd ed), page 118:
"It is often said that the uncertainty principle means energy is not strictly conserved in quantum mechanics - that you're allowed to "borrow" energy $\Delta E$, as long as you "pay it back" in a time $\Delta t \approx \hbar/(2 \Delta E)$; the greater the violation, the briefer the period over which it can occur. Now, there are many legitimate readings of the energy-time uncertainty principle, but this is not one of them." (emphasis mine).



Oh, but you did. You said "So the force acting homogenously over it is by definition the vacuum energy." That may not be what you meant, but if not, then this is a perfect example of why your bad grammar is relevant.



The energy creates a pressure, and the pressure applied to an area can create a force. But the pressure is not a force. If you didn't mean that, then your bad grammar has struck again.



You've got no idea what physics I know. You just don't like being called out on the fact that your writing is incoherent. But that's really not my fault.



Argument from authority. And how do you know which posters do or don't have degrees in physics anyways?

Firstly force of pressure simply means pressure is a force, just as would the force of weight; are you just trolling my time...?

Nevermind the nitpicking - i am ignoring all that... moving on,

Me: The uncertainty of energy allows virtual particles to pop out of the vcuum and movefaster than light.

you: That's what you're claiming the energy-time uncertainty principle does. But it is not a statement about what the energy-time uncertainty principle is, which is what I suggested you didn't know.

What in hell do you mean?

Also, i nver said force and energy are the same - as in one entity. The force of the pressure in the vacuum acts like a force acting on it homogeneously. Read my words properly.

[Singularitarian]

Zig,

the equation relating half the energy of a vibrating quantum system even if absolute zero was achievable is:

\epsilon = \frac{hv}{e \frac{hv}{kT} - 1} + \frac{hv}{2}

Note also one invokes ''vibrational energy'' which is also equivalent to a movement. Kineti energy theory of heated objects corresponds to the likeness of an increasing of the particles movements in a metal for instance creates the heat emitted from the object. Movement and heat related again.

Getting the picture?

[Singularitarian]

Fermilab, Zig is putting you shame...

extract
Quantum mechanics predicts the existence of what are usually called ''zero-point'' energies for the strong, the weak and the electromagnetic interactions, where ''zero-point'' refers to the energy of the system at temperature T=0, or the lowest quantized energy level of a quantum mechanical system. Although the term ''zero-point energy'' applies to all three of these interactions in nature, customarily (and hereafter in this article) it is used in reference only to the electromagnetic case.

In conventional quantum physics, the origin of zero-point energy is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which states that, for a moving particle such as an electron, the more precisely one measures the position, the less exact the best possible measurement of its momentum (mass times velocity), and vice versa. The least possible uncertainty of position times momentum is specified by Planck's constant, h. A parallel uncertainty exists between measurements involving time and energy (and other so-called conjugate variables in quantum mechanics). This minimum uncertainty is not due to any correctable flaws in measurement, but rather reflects an intrinsic quantum fuzziness in the very nature of energy and matter springing from the wave nature of the various quantum fields. This leads to the concept of zero-point energy.

Zero-point energy is the energy that remains when all other energy is removed from a system. This behaviour is demonstrated by, for example, liquid helium. As the temperature is lowered to absolute zero, helium remains a liquid, rather than freezing to a solid, owing to the irremovable zero-point energy of its atomic motions. (Increasing the pressure to 25 atmospheres will cause helium to freeze.) ''

Notice how this absolutely goes against what you claimed?

Source http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html

[Singularitarian]

Now, is anyone else going to argue about my credibility of knowledge in physics, or are we going to continue having rogue players jumping in saying that i must be wrong simply because you are arguing with people who know better - which has shown to be wrong - for if we are not, can we perhaps go back to the OP and challenge the questions properly?

[Singularitarian]

And for those who wanted reference to dark energy relations to zero-point, i was surpsised to find a notice on it from the same link above,

excerpt

''Thus zero-point energy would appear to be identical with the mysterious dark energy, but unfortunately if the energy spectrum does continue up to the Planck frequency, there may be 120 orders of magnitude more energy per cubic centimeter than the observations of cosmic acceleration permit. Indeed, this amount of zero-point energy, interpreted this way, would have accelerated the universe into oblivion in microseconds. ''

[Singularitarian]

Concerning the work above in its consistency with current viable physical models of quantum mechanics, it was only part of the theory where the innate force of particles to always remain on the move by the presence of the pressure in the vacuum excerting a force homogeneously over the surface area of a particle. If the force exerted on the object is constant, then it could be used as a mechanism to explain the law of inertia. Since i am using the theory to explain intrinsic movement (the theory which explains an particle never being at rest, intimately related to the Uncertainty Principle), if the pressure is considered to act on the particle as a force over its surface then it is possible to have a mechanism which balances the constant motion of particles along some trajectory.

Interestingly enough, it would also be an explanation to macroscopic inertia. When concerning particles, the effects are more important however because of the implication of the Uncertainty Principle, since the pressure is acting as a force to give it movement, whilst relativity can explain why large matter can have an inertial rest frame, whereas particles cannot have a complete rest frame. But intended here is to assume that the effects of inertia on the quantum to macroscopic worlds is due to the vacuum density. Arguably you can say this is wrong because the vacuum would exert also a force of drag for massive objects on our scales, so inertia would slow down eventually, but one can avoid this by explaining that massive objects have a magnitude of momentum that overcomes the average density it moves through.

[ben m]

But he argues there is no innate force of movement which is intrinsic to every known particle


He's right. Ground state energy is not a "force"---force means something---it's an energy. And it is not obviously to do with movement; ground states are always stationary states, so the identification of the quantum energy with "movement" is weak. And whatever is going on (not a force, not a movement) is not "intrinsic to every known particle" but has more to do with bound states and interactions.

nor is he aware that the freezing the vacuum to absolute zero does not imply a complete ceasing of movement (and if he really is a scientist),


The vacuum does not have a temperature. Energy density, yes, but not temperature. Freezing non-vacuum systems (gases, spin systems, etc.) to absolute zero may or may not involve a complete ceasing of movement.

He has however not been able to reconcile the theory of heat, nor has he reconciled the theory of kinetic energy which imposes temperature in objects as the particle constituents increase with speed.

Gibberish.

[Singularitarian]

He's not right, what part of the proof's i have countered his claims with don't you understand?

I have had enough of arguing with you.

[Singularitarian]

And by the way, the vacuum does have a temperature.

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem03/chem03305.htm

[Singularitarian]

And:

''Temperature of the vacuum
It is possible to use the zeroth law definition of temperature to assign a temperature to something we don't normally associate temperatures with, like a perfect vacuum. Because all objects emit black body radiation, a thermometer in a vacuum away from thermally radiating sources will radiate away its own thermal energy; decreasing in temperature indefinitely until it reaches the zero-point energy limit. At that point it can be said to be in equilibrium with the vacuum and by definition at the same temperature. If we could find a gas that behaved ideally all the way down to absolute zero the kinetic theory of gases tells us that it would achieve zero kinetic energy per particle, and thereby achieve absolute zero temperature. Thus, by the zeroth law a perfect, isolated vacuum is at absolute zero temperature. Note that in order to behave ideally in this context it is necessary for the atoms of the gas to..''

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

[ben m]

And by the way, the vacuum does have a temperature.

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem03/chem03305.htm

Did you read that, or did you just post the first google hit for "Vacuum temperature"? Yes, any real-world vacuum will in fact have blackbody photons in it; those photons come from the walls or boundaries of the container, and unsurprisingly those photons have a temperature.

This has nothing to do with vacuum fluctuations or the zero point energy or dark energy.

[Singularitarian]

No. I simply knew that the vacuum temperature is of 2.73 kelvin, which is very small, but its still a vacuum temperature.

Nevertheless, you could have saved yourself the trouble and took your own advice to google vacuum temperature and maybe learn something.

[Singularitarian]

And they do have similarities to dark matter, and the zero-point field, whereas both of them have also beenshown to be the same, if you can take the time to read the sources i've provided for you.

[Singularitarian]

Zero-Point Pressure Force and Energy Relations with Pressure
Essay 2.

Total pressure exerted on the surface of particles will only depend fundamentally on the Uncertainty Principle, since this principle is forced into use
due to the pressure locating the said-system down, making the instinsic momentum of the mechanics a possibility. Now i explain through my next equation that
the vacuum pressure is only one component of the force acting homogenously over its surface. An auxilary field density due to spin needs to be encorporated
if i am to retain the classical definitions and arguements put forth to substantiate its claims.

Some of the pressure from the ZPF will according to the laws of quantum mechanics even absorb some of the potential energy of the exerted force in the form
or type of radiation pressure. Here, might i make a contention that the identities of the ZPF and the CMB-Temperatures are not the same, but have intimate
relations through such a radiative pressure theory? In fact, if the quantum object is having the pressure exerted on its surface homogeneously, then the
emission and absorption of particles would distort the position of the particle. In decay processes, it is also possible that so much of this pressure can be
retained over a gradient of some time, which would also provide an explanation to spontaneous decay of particles into other classifications.

Whilst i have a schematic of math that could provide an evidence to this, i can't unify the math yet to provide a mathematical proof. However, i will touch on
some of the idea's i have so far, including my own derivations.

Pressure can be related to energy as:

\mathbb{P}(vt)= F/A (vt) = Mc^2/A(vt) so \mathbb{P}A(vt)=Mc^2

(Note that expanding the Mc^2 gives the left hand side the same value as the relativistic Newtonian Kinetic Energy expression.)

The pressure exerted on a particle is not effected by any change in the systems velocity, but rather a change in momentum is due to the pressure or energy
density in a given part of spacetime in the theory, so in a previous equation i derived gives the kinetic energy related to the density of a particle as an
integral in respect to some time is given as:

\Box \phi \int -1/2 w(\Delta t) = \rho (-\Delta M_g t^2)

which gives \Delta (Fd) \rho t

Now, to find the difference between the value of the force of drag due to the density of the medium and calculate it with the kinetic energy as an integral
in respect to time to calculate the total energy required to do the work:

\Delta(Fd cos \theta) \rho_{t} + 1/2 \rho Au^2 f_{c}(R_e)C_d = \Delta \mathbb{K_e}

For a massless system, obviously gravitational inertia does not effect their overall constant velocity so it would satisfy to say:

\frac{1}{2} \gamma \frac{\partial^2 \rho}{\partial t} + \nabla \dot g + \Delta(F_d cos \theta) \rho_{t} -\frac{1}{2}\gamma \rho Au^2 f_c (R_e) C_d=0

which as you might have noticed, encorporates the gamma to reduce any Mass in the equation to zero, however, what of the \frac{1}{2} \gamma \frac{\partial^2 \rho}{\partial t} + \nabla \dot g
part? The derivation is:

\frac{1}{c^2} \frac{\partial^2 \rho}{\partial t} - \nabla^2 \varphi + g \varphi^3=0

where the langrangian is of the fourth power, relating energy again to these specific derivations. This is due to relationship to the gravitational charge
given as:

\nabla^2 \hbar c=\frac{1}{c^2} \frac{\partial^2(GM^2)}{\partial t^2}

which in its quantized gravitational charge form provides us with:

\nabla^2 \hbar= \frac{1}{c^2} \frac{\partial^2(\frac{GM^2}{c})}{\partial t^2}

So for a boson in the form of energy, we would have:

\nabla^2 \hbar - \frac{1}{c^2} \frac{\partial^2(\frac{GM^2}{c})}{\partial t^2} = 0

A more complex way to express this would be in terms of using the langrangian identification so we now have:

1/2 \frac{1}{c^2} \frac{\partial^2(\frac{GM^2}{c})}{\partial t^2} - \nabla^2 \hbar \ne \propto M^2 \varphi^3 = 0

But even though its diversely a more complicated form, it does define itself as an in-equality.

[Singularitarian]

Ok, for the equations that do not come up rght, i will just remove the latex for them.

[ben m]

No. I simply knew that the vacuum temperature is of 2.73 kelvin, which is very small, but its still a vacuum temperature.

Nevertheless, you could have saved yourself the trouble and took your own advice to google vacuum temperature and maybe learn something.

2.73K is not "the vacuum temperature". 2.73K is the temperature of a particular, identifiable collection of thermal photons called the CMB. In the same near-vacuum in which the CMB photons are found, there is also a collection of neutrinos of similar origin; their temperature is 1.9K. In many labs you will find vacuum chambers in which the local photon population is at 0.001K. None of these facts have anything whatsoever with the zero-point; none of them are ever referred to as "the vacuum temperature".

[Singularitarian]

2.73K is not "the vacuum temperature". 2.73K is the temperature of a particular, identifiable collection of thermal photons called the CMB. In the same near-vacuum in which the CMB photons are found, there is also a collection of neutrinos of similar origin; their temperature is 1.9K. In many labs you will find vacuum chambers in which the local photon population is at 0.001K. None of these facts have anything whatsoever with the zero-point; none of them are ever referred to as "the vacuum temperature".

Once again i am yet to do your homework for you for the second time in this thread

pasted from google search:

Absolute zero - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Absolute zero physically possesses quantum mechanical zero-point energy. .... The average background temperature of the Universe today is 2.73 Kelvin, but it has spatial ... such as a system of non-interacting spins in a magnetic field, ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_zero - Cached - Similar

Notice the words tempeture, univrse and energy? Notice also the corresponding averaged temperature of 2.73 Kelvin, which is very cold, the temperature i once referred to you?

Go learn some of the physics first before you want to debate them please.

[Mashuna]

It looks as though the Black Knight, after his fight with King Arthur, took up physics.

[Ziggurat]

EDIT: I want to quickly mention - before questioning Ziggurat's knowledge of physics, you might want to ask him his qualifications. Unless I'm mistaken, I recall mention of him previously being employed by Fermilab to help code software for one of their detectors.

That's somebody else. But I've got good enough credentials for this conversation.

[Singularitarian]

That's somebody else. But I've got good enough credentials for this conversation.

Oh, then care to counter some of the obvious inconsistencies in your debated -claims?

[Singularitarian]

Anyway, i've finally calculated the correct formula for the uncertainty relationship invoking the force. I will present the non-relativistic, and obviously non-classical interpretation soon, i need to go the now.

[Ziggurat]

But he argues there is no innate force of movement which is intrinsic to every known particle

Because there isn't any such force. Force has a specific meaning in physics.

nor is he aware that the freezing the vacuum to absolute zero does not imply a complete ceasing of movement

You've got some reading comprehension problems. Let me quote myself, from a mere 5 posts before yours:

zero temperature does not mean zero motion or zero energy

Lying about what other posters say doesn't make you appear smarter than them. It makes you look like an idiot.

(and if he really is a scientist), then he would also know that half the energy of a quantum oscillating sytem at zero-point energy still has a movement.

Half the energy of a quantum harmonic oscillator is kinetic for ANY eigenstate, whether it's the ground state or not. That's a result of the virial theorem. Since all expectation values are static, whether or not that counts as "movement" becomes an issue of how you want to define the word, but that's a rather uninteresting discussion. Furthermore this 50/50 split between kinetic and potential energies is not true in general: it is SPECIFICALLY for the harmonic oscillator.

He has however not been able to reconcile the theory of heat,

You mean thermodynamics? Reconcile it with what?

nor has he reconciled the theory of kinetic energy which imposes temperature in objects as the particle constituents increase with speed.

There is no "theory of kinetic energy". Kinetic energy is a part of numerous theories (including Newtonian mechanics, quantum mechanics, special relativity, etc), and there is a kinetic theory of gasses, but there is no "theory of kinetic energy". Assuming that you meant the kinetic theory of gasses, well, there's no reconciling that needs to be done: it's an approximation that is known to break down at low temperatures.

He therefore says there is no connection between temperature and movement which is clearly wrong.

Again, you are lying about what I said. So let me quote myself again:

Temperature is a statistical property related to energy and entropy, both of which involve more than just motion.

Did I say there was no connection? No, I rather explicitly did not. It does. It also involves potential energy. In fact, the definition of temperature makes no distinction between different kinds of energy.

So temperature as related to the heat/energy is ever zero, because there is a still a massive amount of energy resident even in the theory which should include a motionless state

Thermodynamics imposes NO requirement that there be no motion at zero temperature. That's an implication of the kinetic theory of gasses, but that theory is based explicitly on approximations that we expect to break down at low temperatures, and we've experimentally seen this breakdown in countless systems.

You've lied about what I said to construct a strawman of my position, and ignored the actual contents of my post. Not an impressive response.


The temperature of the vauum can never reach an absolute zero-temperature due to half of the energy of the system remining. Another mistake you made.

Nope. The ground state of a harmonic oscillator has half the energy of the energy level spacing, but since there's no upper limit, the only "energy of the system" is whatever the energy of the system is at the moment. And it's a tautology that a system never has only half its energy. In the ground state, it's got ALL of the ground state energy. It's true that half of this ground state energy is kinetic, but that means that half is potential. And as any fool knows, both kinetic energy and potential energy play a role in temperature. But you're not any fool, are you?

And in the case of a vacuum, well, what the hell is kinetic energy in a vacuum? It doesn't make any sense. If we talk about, say, the electromagnetic field in a vacuum, then we get wave equations which resemble a harmonic oscillator in form. But our phase space variables are not position and momentum, but E field and B fields. So the energy is split evenly between the E field and the B field.

Firstly force of pressure simply means pressure is a force,

Not it isn't. It's a force divided by an area. Different dimensions different units, and in general different numeric values. The distinction isn't even freshman physics, it's highschool physics. And you're failing.

What in hell do you mean?

I mean that I don't think you can actually explain the meaning behind the energy-time uncertainty principle.

Also, i nver said force and energy are the same - as in one entity. The force of the pressure in the vacuum acts like a force acting on it homogeneously. Read my words properly.

How about trying to write your words properly?

the equation relating half the energy of a vibrating quantum system even if absolute zero was achievable is:

\epsilon = \frac{hv}{e \frac{hv}{kT} - 1} + \frac{hv}{2}

Congratulations: you've just contradicted yourself. Earlier you said that zero temperature could not be reached because energy remained. And now you show that zero temperature still has energy, which means that the existence of energy cannot disprove zero temperature.

Getting the picture?

No, I don't think you are getting the picture.

extract
Quantum mechanics predicts the existence of what are usually called ''zero-point'' energies for the strong, the weak and the electromagnetic interactions, where ''zero-point'' refers to the energy of the system at temperature T=0

So your quote is saying the same thing I said above: T=0 does not imply zero energy. Rather than making a fool out of me, you're making a fool out of yourself.

or the lowest quantized energy level of a quantum mechanical system.

Let me quote myself again:

Temperature is zero if you reach the ground state, even if motion remains in the ground state.

Oh, look at that: your quote says the same thing that I said.

In conventional quantum physics, the origin of zero-point energy is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle

This is incorrect. Let me quote again from Griffiths, p 114:
"The Schrodinger equation is explicitly non-relativistic: It treats t and x on a very unequal footing (as a differential equation it is first-order in t, but second-order in x), and Equation 3.70 [the energy-time uncertainty relation] is emphatically not implied by Equation 3.69 [the Heisenberg uncertainty relation]."

which states that, for a moving particle such as an electron, the more precisely one measures the position, the less exact the best possible measurement of its momentum (mass times velocity), and vice versa. The least possible uncertainty of position times momentum is specified by Planck's constant, h. A parallel uncertainty exists between measurements involving time and energy (and other so-called conjugate variables in quantum mechanics).

Well, no. And this quote reveals its own error. You cannot measure the "time" of a particle in conventional quantum mechanics. It is not a dynamic variable, it is an independent variable only. So it is not a conjugate variable for energy.

There's a reason I asked for a technical source, and this wasn't one. Which is why it included errors that any serious student of quantum mechanics could spot easily. Whether the author is confused, or just dumbing it down to the point of error for the sake of a non-expert audience, I can't tell. Nor do I care.

As the temperature is lowered to absolute zero, helium remains a liquid, rather than freezing to a solid, owing to the irremovable zero-point energy of its atomic motions. (Increasing the pressure to 25 atmospheres will cause helium to freeze.) ''

Notice how this absolutely goes against what you claimed?

No, it doesn't. It goes against the strawman you tried to construct, but your lies are rather transparent. If you look at what I actually wrote, I rather explicitly stated that energy could remain at T=0, in the ground state.

And for those who wanted reference to dark energy relations to zero-point, i was surpsised to find a notice on it from the same link above

If you're the expert you pretend to be, why should that surprise you?

And I for one never denied any connection between zero-point energy and dark energy. What I said was that the CMB is not dark energy, nor is it zero point energy. And you have shown no evidence to indicate otherwise. Nor will you be able to. If you understood what any of those three things were, you'd see why it's obvious that the CMB cannot be dark energy or zero-point energy.

[Singularitarian]

You have intentionally fabricated and misused every comment i made to you, so i will not content to answer this wall of rubbish, not becuase i can't, but rather i cannot be bothered waisting my time on such rubbish.

[Singularitarian]

And there is no-way in hell you are a scientist. I am a Graduate in physics, and i can tell you lack drammatically in physics knowledge.

[rwguinn]

And there is no-way in hell you are a scientist. I am a Graduate in physics, and i can tell you lack drammatically in physics knowledge.

And you Yurpan people complain about the inadequacy and stupidity of the US Education system...

[Singularitarian]

The US do not teach beyond their own patronism. Simple as that.

[nathan]

And there is no-way in hell you are a scientist. I am a Graduate in physics, and i can tell you lack drammatically in physics knowledge.

To be clear, you claim to have a Diploma, not a degree.

[Ziggurat]

You have intentionally fabricated and misused every comment i made to you

I have fabricated nothing. Everyone can look at the quotes I gave, compare them to your original post, and see that I have quoted you accurately. You, on the other hand, lied about what I said, and I provided the quotes to prove it.

so i will not content to answer this wall of rubbish, not becuase i can't, but rather i cannot be bothered waisting my time on such rubbish.

Yeah, sure. We all believe your excuse. You were so eager to try to refute me before, you couldn't even contain your response to a single post. But now that I've answered you point-by-point, what do you do?

http://www.geocities.com/fang_club/Sir_robin_part_3_pic.jpg

Brave Sir Robin ran away.
Bravely ran away, away!
When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat,
Bravest of the brave, Sir Robin!

[sol invictus]

Absolute zero - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Absolute zero physically possesses quantum mechanical zero-point energy. .... The average background temperature of the Universe today is 2.73 Kelvin, but it has spatial ... such as a system of non-interacting spins in a magnetic field, ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_zero - Cached - Similar

Notice the words tempeture, univrse and energy? Notice also the corresponding averaged temperature of 2.73 Kelvin, which is very cold, the temperature i once referred to you?

Sadly, it is often necessary to understand the meaning of the sentences words form.

[Singularitarian]

And what are you implying, that i don't know them?

Don't make me laugh, please. I see a very little degree of intellectuals round here, never mind the one's who contribute very little to the science, but, nevertheless, still like to moan about it whenever anyone does.

[ben m]

And what are you implying, that i don't know them?

Don't make me laugh, please. I see a very little degree of intellectuals round here, never mind the one's who contribute very little to the science, but, nevertheless, still like to moan about it whenever anyone does.

Singularitarian, Sean Carroll has some very important advice (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/06/19/the-alternative-science-respectability-checklist/) for you. Please read it.

[Singularitarian]

Before i read it, i think i am already aware of it.

It's Carrols erreneous test (i think) which checks the validity of a science theory?

[ben m]

Before i read it, i think i am already aware of it.

It's Carrols erreneous test (i think) which checks the validity of a science theory?

No, it has nothing to do with checking the validity of a theory. It is advice for how an outsider can have an intelligent, polite discussion with experts. The goal is not to avoid you calling everyone an idiot and vice-versa.

(Once you're having such a discussion, it's possible for all sides to look at the merits of the theory. But not before.)

[Singularitarian]

Oh if that's it then, this site scores an -F.


Sorry guys, but the general attitude here is as degradated as the knowledge of physics being flung about.

[sol invictus]

And what are you implying, that i don't know them?

It's completely obvious to everyone.

You know how people rubberneck at an accident? That's the only reason anyone is reading or posting in these threads of yours - that and the psychologically fascinating combination of complete ignorance and total arrogance you display.

[Singularitarian]

I might be arrogant, but at least i am still me.

[Darth Rotor]

Singularitarian:

What is this "vacuum pressure" that you refer to? Is this a unit of measurement intended to show how much an argument sucks?

I may be watzing the semantic matilda here, but I am going to try and parse this concept of vacuum energy, which seems to me an oxymoron, or a paradox.

A vacuum in its strictest sense has nothing in it, no matter, no heat, no temp to measure, nothing moving about in it, and thus no pressure. We'd recognized it as a vacuum for its having the infinite ability to take in anything and everything "near by" (perhaps only at the atomic level) due to particles tending to spread from areas of higher energy to areas of lower (or no) energy. (I may be confusing fluid heat transfer with space/gas/vacuum models here, I confess.) It would always be the lower value between two or more P's in a delta P comparison, no matter how small the other P is in magnitude.

A vacuum would be extremely rare to encounter, since as soon as one encountered it, some of the observer's, or neighboring massed objects', heat/energy/mass would flow toward it, filling it oh so slightly, or muchly, with mass/energy and rendering it a vacuum no more.

Crap, I think I just confused myself.

DR

[Singularitarian]

What is this "vacuum pressure" that you refer to? Is this a unit of measurement intended to show how much an argument sucks?

It sucks for a particle, because this energy density is the total inherent energy within the vacuum which is a total of all the potential and real energy and matter forms in the vacuum.

A vacuum in its strictest sense has nothing in it, no matter, no heat, no temp to measure, nothing movig about in it, and thus no pressure.

Not according to the equations of General Relativity which encorporates a stress-energy tensor on momentum of objects moving through a for dimensional vector space.

[b](I may be confusing fluid heat transfer with space/gas/vacuum models here, I confess.)b]

I confess also, i have no idea.

[Molinaro]

And there is no-way in hell you are a scientist. I am a Graduate in physics, and i can tell you lack drammatically in physics knowledge.

Your explanations have been incorrect.
The corrections offered by Sol, Zig, Ben, Ed, etc.. have all been perfectly clear, in agreement with my education in physics and with the english words used in a totaly expected way.

Either you have a different way of ordering your words, along with some personal definitions for words commonly used in physics and can't translate your perfectly correct understanding of physics that resides in your head. Or, you have no freaking clue what you are talking about.

When you find that you alone understand, and everyone else is a crackpot, that should be taken as evidence that you are the crackpot.

[Singularitarian]

You lot must be sitting in a room together eating a magic-mushroom stew, because, i can assure you, my contrbutions have been 100% scientifically-accurate within these discussions in this thread, i have had enough for now.

So far, i have given the most foolish theory in physics,

next, it will be the most illogical...

[Ziggurat]

You lot must be sitting in a room together eating a magic-mushroom stew, because, i can assure you, my contrbutions have been 100% scientifically-accurate within these discussions in this thread

Oops (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4923595#post4923595).

So far, i have given the most foolish theory in physics,

Yes, I suppose you did. You walked right into that one.

[Molinaro]

Not it isn't. It's a force divided by an area. Different dimensions different units, and in general different numeric values. The distinction isn't even freshman physics, it's highschool physics. And you're failing.

And yet you ignore corrections like this repeatedly. You have numerous times given equations where the units don't balance. And you relate concepts that dimensionaly are not equivalent. And, you make no effort to counter the corrections!

Then, you follow that up with declarations of being error free.

What are we suposed to think when we read something like the comment above by Ziggurat, that is obviously correct, while you have no answer or perhaps no understanding of his comment?

[Singularitarian]

WTF are you on about? I've been using te F/A equation for while longer before he started mentioning it, yet, you think i don't know what it equals?

I really have had enough for tonight.

[Singularitarian]

And since everyone here is so giddy to be these nasty characteristics this place seems to have developed, i am going to create a General and Relativity quiz thread so i actually can measure up the intellect here... so i will do this now, lets see how many of these genious' come up to answer them.

[Molinaro]

WTF are you on about? I've been using te F/A equation for while longer before he started mentioning it, yet, you think i don't know what it equals?

I really have had enough for tonight.

Your reply makes no sense. You don't seem to even undestand the basis of the objection put forward by Ziggurat.

You specificaly said pressure is a force.

It's not. They don't have the same units. Therefore, they are not the same thing. Don't you understand that?

[Ziggurat]

i am going to create a General and Relativity quiz thread so i actually can measure up the intellect here

"General and Relativity"... that's a new one. Will we have to calculate Christoffel symbols? Ricci tensors? I'm a little rusty on my tensor index notation, guess I better brush up.

[Singularitarian]

Oopps - a special was supposed to preceede the relativity part, either way, yeh, you should polish up on it i would say.

[ben m]

WTF are you on about? I've been using te F/A equation for while longer before he started mentioning it, yet, you think i don't know what it equals?


How long had you been using Pvt = Mc^2/(Avt) without catching the elementary algebra mistake?

How long had you been using p ~ 1/2 mv^2 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4920870#post4920870) without catching the still-apologized-for mistake?

How long have you been claiming that the CMB temperature remains constant as the Universe expands?

So: yes, it is very easy to believe that you might use an equation for years and not know how it works.

[Singularitarian]

I do believe the second account has a totally different identity, since the second account you refer to was actually just a typo, whilst this time was a rusty elementary math mistake...

...so please, rub the salt in with some pepper while your at it. I will just remember it in the future.

[Singularitarian]

And the CMB does not dissappear or reappear in expansion. As spacetime expands, the electromagnetic radiation is compensated to cover that area of spacetime which appears. What part of that don't you understand? It's pure relativity!

[Ziggurat]

And the CMB does not dissappear or reappear in expansion.

Nobody claimed it does. But it changes because of expansion. Which means it's not part of any cosmological constant. Because it's not, you know, constant. It changes over time.

[ben m]

And the CMB does not dissappear or reappear in expansion. As spacetime expands, the electromagnetic radiation is compensated to cover that area of spacetime which appears. What part of that don't you understand? It's pure relativity!

Listen carefully Singularitarian: You have made a mistake. The quoted text is factually false. If you don't believe me, go ask your physics teachers. Go ask a textbook. Go ask Wikipedia. Visit your local planetarium and ask the presenter. Look up your local amateur-astronomers club and go ask them.

Perhaps you are thinking of isothermal expansion. If you have a chamber whose walls are at a constant temperature, its internal blackbody energy density will be constant. If this kind of chamber expands, the wall's radiation balance changes, additional energy is transferred from the walls to the photons, and the energy density stays constant.

The Universe (including the CMB) is not isothermal. It is expanding adiabatically. When a volume expands adiabatically, its energy density decreases. The CMB-emitting plasma is not still around to emit new photons and make up the difference. The vacuum is certainly not emitting any photons.

References: Peebles, "Principles of Physical Cosmology", 1993: "A homogeneous expansion of the universe causes the radiation to cool, as in an adiabatic expansion processs ... The energy density in the CBR varies as (1+z)^4 ... the expansion of the Universe causes the radiation density to evolve as \rho_\gamma \propto T^4 \propto a(t)^{-4}

[Singularitarian]

The radatiation density is not just measured as an observable energy, which is the point i have been making all along. Why do you think \Lambda is a vacuum energy density which is infinite in nature?

[Singularitarian]

And even if it cools, it only shows a decrease in electromagnetic signalling. The dispersion of the CMB-t will not variate upon such a consequence of cooling, because of the theory of relativity.

[sol invictus]

You're wrong, Sing. You've confused the CMB with dark energy, and now you're "arguing" with people that actually understand this stuff. Admit it, learn something - if that's possible - and move on.

[ben m]

The radatiation density is not just measured as an observable energy, which is the point i have been making all along. Why do you think \Lambda is a vacuum energy density which is infinite in nature?

Still wrong. The CMB is a collection of real, ordinary photons. They were emitted by atoms a long time ago (just like how regular atoms emit photons.) After flying around for a long time, some of them are absorbed by our antennas, photometers, bolometers, etc. today (just like how regular photons can be absorbed by antennas, bolometers, etc.). The CMB energy density is decreasing.

The quantum vacuum is completely unrelated. Virtual photons, virtual particle loops, etc., (a) are not emitted from plasmas, (b) do not propagate through space, and (c) do not interact with detectors. The quantum vacuum may or may not be the source of the (observed) acceleration of the expansion rate of the Universe. Lambda, whatever it is, is observed to be of constant density, at least within the 10-20% error on such measurements.

Don't take my word for it. Go read about it. Go to the library. It almost doesn't matter what textbook you use; they'll all tell you what we are telling you.

[ben m]

And even if it cools, it only shows a decrease in electromagnetic signalling. The dispersion of the CMB-t will not variate upon such a consequence of cooling, because of the theory of relativity.

Gibberish.

[Darth Rotor]

What is this "vacuum pressure" that you refer to? Is this a unit of measurement intended to show how much an argument sucks?

It sucks for a particle, because this energy density is the total inherent energy within the vacuum which is a total of all the potential and real energy and matter forms in the vacuum.

A vacuum in its strictest sense has nothing in it, no matter, no heat, no temp to measure, nothing movig about in it, and thus no pressure.

Not according to the equations of General Relativity which encorporates a stress-energy tensor on momentum of objects moving through a for dimensional vector space.

[b](I may be confusing fluid heat transfer with space/gas/vacuum models here, I confess.)b]

I confess also, i have no idea.
OK, I know I will regret this: what is a vacuum, to you?