Science > Physics > Schwinger's vacuum breakdown, a new interpretation
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"jpolasek" |
| Date: |
03 Sep 2006 04:45:57 PM |
| Object: |
Schwinger's vacuum breakdown, a new interpretation |
(New thread as the original one was bifurcated).
Schwinger (1951) (& see arXiv:hep-ph/9805507, Melissinos) hypothesized
that vacuum would break down if, in a field with intensity Es, an
electron would amass the energy mc^2 over a path of the (rationalized)
CWL hbar/mc. Thus
Es*el*Lrcw = mc^2 with
Es given as 1.3x10^18 V/m with hbar/mc or,
Ess would be 2.1x10^17 V/m with h/mc (regular) (1c)
being a statement of force time distance, with the two interpretations
of CWL of being either h/mc or hbar/mc. (Schwinger paper not to hand).
I developed my own version (unknowingly) of the Schwinger effect While
trying to deduce the content of the vacuum for my Dual Space theory. It
can be seen in SI units (overly detailed), in my paper #1,
"Permittivity", on my website http://www.dualspace.net
I deduced that the vacuum consists of a matrix of elastically-bound
pairs of electrons and positrons centered in a cubic domain of
L = 3.514e-14m. Fig. 2 op cit
Each charge has the range of a half-cell:
L' = L/2 = CWL*FSC
The half-cell range L' of each charge exactly equals the Compton
wavelength scaled down by the FSC = 1/137. The FSC is really the scale
factor between pair-space and our universe, as amplified below.
These polarizable charge pairs are what make the permitivity of space
equal to eps = 8.8e-12 F/m (or Coul/volt-meter)
The dimension L was derived by assuming the cell or cube was a
capacitor which, with
Vc = 1.022MV
(from Vce = 2mc^2 of pair production)
across it, would produce 2e. This is pair-production, that is, Vc was
required to push them out of the cell, and it is a reproduction of
Schwinger's effect (to cause vacuum breakdown with issuance of pairs).
Permittivity eps was used in computing the capacity
C = eps*L^2/L = eps*L so that, fully "charged"
C*Vc = 2e
In other words as we gradually raise the voltage up to Vc the pair will
approach the boundary and exit. We get the critical field intensity Ec
as
Ec = Vc/L = 2.88x10^19 V/m Eq. 8a
(It is impossible to impose a step voltage on a capacitor or on the
'primal cell' as this would require a singular delta function of
current).
It will be seen that
Ec = Ess/FSC or Ec = Ess* 137 times
that is, the ratio is nicely alpha, when using 'regular' CWL (1c
above).
We can calculate a maximum force Fmax:
Fmax = Ec*e = 4.6N Eq. 8b
Thus there is a linear spring constant K
K = Fmax/L' = 2.6x10^14 N/m Eq. 11a
Then the work done over L' (where F = Kx) is (both)
W = .5 Fmax * L' x 2 = mc^2 Eq. 8c
for both electron and positron.
Therefore we push for the use of h/mc in Ess above, and conclude that
Schwinger's idea justifies the logic of dual space theory.
Many other parameters of the vacuum follow immediately, the mass and
charge density, resonant frequency, modulus of elasticity, transmission
at the speed of light as shown in Eq. 9-13 op cit.
But the most important conclusion is that our stars came from electrons
out of pair space, shored up by the fact that the electrons expand by
1/FSC^3 or 2.5 million to become the density of iron, the flagship
element of our universe. The expansion energy is sufficient to
accelerate iron to the speed of light. (Eq. 13-19) of the DS book.
Briefly the energy density of pairspace times alpha^3 = rho-Fe* c^2.
The Schwinger effect is a valuable and accurate (and reassuring)
hypothesis against which to test the conclusions of dual space theory.
John Polasek
http:www.dualspace.net
.
|
|
| User: "FrediFizzx" |
|
| Title: Re: Schwinger's vacuum breakdown, a new interpretation |
03 Sep 2006 08:02:10 PM |
|
|
"jpolasek" <jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1157319957.570536.11990@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
(New thread as the original one was bifurcated).
Schwinger (1951) (& see arXiv:hep-ph/9805507, Melissinos) hypothesized
that vacuum would break down if, in a field with intensity Es, an
electron would amass the energy mc^2 over a path of the (rationalized)
CWL hbar/mc. Thus
Es*el*Lrcw = mc^2 with
Es given as 1.3x10^18 V/m with hbar/mc or,
Ess would be 2.1x10^17 V/m with h/mc (regular) (1c)
being a statement of force time distance, with the two interpretations
of CWL of being either h/mc or hbar/mc. (Schwinger paper not to hand).
I developed my own version (unknowingly) of the Schwinger effect While
trying to deduce the content of the vacuum for my Dual Space theory.
It
can be seen in SI units (overly detailed), in my paper #1,
"Permittivity", on my website http://www.dualspace.net
I deduced that the vacuum consists of a matrix of elastically-bound
pairs of electrons and positrons centered in a cubic domain of
L = 3.514e-14m. Fig. 2 op cit
Each charge has the range of a half-cell:
L' = L/2 = CWL*FSC
The half-cell range L' of each charge exactly equals the Compton
wavelength scaled down by the FSC = 1/137. The FSC is really the
scale
factor between pair-space and our universe, as amplified below.
Not exactly. The real factor is the sqrt(alpha) which is about
1/11.706. And this is simply the ratio between electronic charge and
quantum "vacuum" charge (QVC) = +,- sqrt(hbar*c). With QVC being charge
associated with gauge bosons -- most notably photons. And this is just
taking vacuum polarization to tree level. The scale factor between our
spacetime and pair spacetime is most likely much greater than this if we
take into consideration a Randall-Sundrum RS1-like "warped geometry"
scenario. Most likely on the order of 10^18. But from our perspective
it looks like on the order of alpha.
These polarizable charge pairs are what make the permitivity of space
equal to eps = 8.8e-12 F/m (or Coul/volt-meter)
The dimension L was derived by assuming the cell or cube was a
capacitor which, with
Vc = 1.022MV
(from Vce = 2mc^2 of pair production)
across it, would produce 2e. This is pair-production, that is, Vc was
required to push them out of the cell, and it is a reproduction of
Schwinger's effect (to cause vacuum breakdown with issuance of
pairs).
Permittivity eps was used in computing the capacity
C = eps*L^2/L = eps*L so that, fully "charged"
C*Vc = 2e
In other words as we gradually raise the voltage up to Vc the pair
will
approach the boundary and exit. We get the critical field intensity
Ec
as
Ec = Vc/L = 2.88x10^19 V/m Eq. 8a
(It is impossible to impose a step voltage on a capacitor or on the
'primal cell' as this would require a singular delta function of
current).
It will be seen that
Ec = Ess/FSC or Ec = Ess* 137 times
that is, the ratio is nicely alpha, when using 'regular' CWL (1c
above).
We can calculate a maximum force Fmax:
Fmax = Ec*e = 4.6N Eq. 8b
Thus there is a linear spring constant K
K = Fmax/L' = 2.6x10^14 N/m Eq. 11a
Then the work done over L' (where F = Kx) is (both)
W = .5 Fmax * L' x 2 = mc^2 Eq. 8c
for both electron and positron.
Therefore we push for the use of h/mc in Ess above, and conclude that
Schwinger's idea justifies the logic of dual space theory.
Some of the logic. The "dual space" part IMHO, is a natural follow thru
to explain a necessary "hidden sector".
"Higgs-field Portal into Hidden Sectors" -- Brian Patt and Frank
Wilczek
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0605188
We can see here that even Wilczek is getting on the bandwagon of dual
spacetime scenarios with talk of "hidden sectors" and "phantom matter".
;-) Yeah, baby!
Many other parameters of the vacuum follow immediately, the mass and
charge density, resonant frequency, modulus of elasticity,
transmission
at the speed of light as shown in Eq. 9-13 op cit.
But the most important conclusion is that our stars came from
electrons
out of pair space, shored up by the fact that the electrons expand by
1/FSC^3 or 2.5 million to become the density of iron, the flagship
element of our universe. The expansion energy is sufficient to
accelerate iron to the speed of light. (Eq. 13-19) of the DS book.
Briefly the energy density of pairspace times alpha^3 = rho-Fe* c^2.
The above paragraph is messed up. Pions can be produced in the same way
as e+e- pairs theoretically.
The Schwinger effect is a valuable and accurate (and reassuring)
hypothesis against which to test the conclusions of dual space theory.
As Melissinos points out, this hypothesis has somewhat been shown to be
true by the SLAC e144 experiment. There are some planned experiments
using the new X-Ray Free Electron Lasers to further test the hypothesis
but I don't know what the current status is. The effect also means that
in the vincinity of an electron to order hbar/mc, the field strength of
an electron is enough to spontaneously create pairs from the quantum
"vacuum". This is all covered quite nicely in Milonni's "The Quantum
Vacuum: An Introduction to QED". But the quantum "vacuum" is more than
just John's pair-space. It includes a dynamical intersection "distance"
between the dual spacetimes.
FrediFizzx
Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
http://www.vacuum-physics.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "John C. Polasek" |
|
| Title: Re: Schwinger's vacuum breakdown, a new interpretation |
03 Sep 2006 10:08:57 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 3 Sep 2006 18:02:10 -0700, "FrediFizzx"
<fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"jpolasek" <jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1157319957.570536.11990@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
(New thread as the original one was bifurcated).
Schwinger (1951) (& see arXiv:hep-ph/9805507, Melissinos) hypothesized
that vacuum would break down if, in a field with intensity Es, an
electron would amass the energy mc^2 over a path of the (rationalized)
CWL hbar/mc. Thus
Es*el*Lrcw = mc^2 with
Es given as 1.3x10^18 V/m with hbar/mc or,
Ess would be 2.1x10^17 V/m with h/mc (regular) (1c)
being a statement of force time distance, with the two interpretations
of CWL of being either h/mc or hbar/mc. (Schwinger paper not to hand).
I developed my own version (unknowingly) of the Schwinger effect While
trying to deduce the content of the vacuum for my Dual Space theory.
It
can be seen in SI units (overly detailed), in my paper #1,
"Permittivity", on my website http://www.dualspace.net
I deduced that the vacuum consists of a matrix of elastically-bound
pairs of electrons and positrons centered in a cubic domain of
L = 3.514e-14m. Fig. 2 op cit
Each charge has the range of a half-cell:
L' = L/2 = CWL*FSC
The half-cell range L' of each charge exactly equals the Compton
wavelength scaled down by the FSC = 1/137. The FSC is really the
scale factor between pair-space and our universe, as amplified below.
Not exactly. The real factor is the sqrt(alpha) which is about
1/11.706. And this is simply the ratio between electronic charge and
quantum "vacuum" charge (QVC) = +,- sqrt(hbar*c).
Fredi you need eps0 in sqrt(hbar*c*eps0) to make it coulombs and then
it's about 3.3 electrons or 1/sqrt(4pi*alpha) electrons.
With QVC being charge
associated with gauge bosons -- most notably photons. And this is just
taking vacuum polarization to tree level. The scale factor between our
spacetime and pair spacetime is most likely much greater than this if we
take into consideration a Randall-Sundrum RS1-like "warped geometry"
scenario. Most likely on the order of 10^18. But from our perspective
it looks like on the order of alpha.
Fredi, what does your theory say about the Schwinger effect? What
features would cause the vacuum to emit pairs?
These polarizable charge pairs are what make the permitivity of space
equal to eps = 8.8e-12 F/m (or Coul/volt-meter)
The dimension L was derived by assuming the cell or cube was a
capacitor which, with
Vc = 1.022MV
(from Vce = 2mc^2 of pair production)
across it, would produce 2e. This is pair-production, that is, Vc was
required to push them out of the cell, and it is a reproduction of
Schwinger's effect (to cause vacuum breakdown with issuance of
pairs).
Permittivity eps was used in computing the capacity
C = eps*L^2/L = eps*L so that, fully "charged"
C*Vc = 2e
In other words as we gradually raise the voltage up to Vc the pair
will
approach the boundary and exit. We get the critical field intensity
Ec
as
Ec = Vc/L = 2.88x10^19 V/m Eq. 8a
(It is impossible to impose a step voltage on a capacitor or on the
'primal cell' as this would require a singular delta function of
current).
It will be seen that
Ec = Ess/FSC or Ec = Ess* 137 times
that is, the ratio is nicely alpha, when using 'regular' CWL (1c
above).
We can calculate a maximum force Fmax:
Fmax = Ec*e = 4.6N Eq. 8b
Thus there is a linear spring constant K
K = Fmax/L' = 2.6x10^14 N/m Eq. 11a
Then the work done over L' (where F = Kx) is (both)
W = .5 Fmax * L' x 2 = mc^2 Eq. 8c
for both electron and positron.
Therefore we push for the use of h/mc in Ess above, and conclude that
Schwinger's idea justifies the logic of dual space theory.
Some of the logic. The "dual space" part IMHO, is a natural follow thru
to explain a necessary "hidden sector".
"Higgs-field Portal into Hidden Sectors" -- Brian Patt and Frank
Wilczek
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0605188
We can see here that even Wilczek is getting on the bandwagon of dual
spacetime scenarios with talk of "hidden sectors" and "phantom matter".
;-) Yeah, baby!
Many other parameters of the vacuum follow immediately, the mass and
charge density, resonant frequency, modulus of elasticity,
transmission
at the speed of light as shown in Eq. 9-13 op cit.
But the most important conclusion is that our stars came from
electrons
out of pair space, shored up by the fact that the electrons expand by
1/FSC^3 or 2.5 million to become the density of iron, the flagship
element of our universe. The expansion energy is sufficient to
accelerate iron to the speed of light. (Eq. 13-19) of the DS book.
Briefly the energy density of pairspace times alpha^3 = rho-Fe* c^2.
The above paragraph is messed up. Pions can be produced in the same way
as e+e- pairs theoretically.
Fred I am talking about creation ab initio; no lab in the world can
extract just the electron. The Milossimos paper is about banging two
laser beams together just to produce pairs which are temporary sparks
and then they're short by 3 orders of magnitude.
I am talking about the electronbeams as currents that suck together
(Faraday) rather than repel and cook for 10Byrs to become our stars
full of elements. I'm saying the most they could be initially would be
iron; heavier atoms are by nuclear accretion.
The Schwinger effect is a valuable and accurate (and reassuring)
hypothesis against which to test the conclusions of dual space theory.
As Melissinos points out, this hypothesis has somewhat been shown to be
true by the SLAC e144 experiment. There are some planned experiments
using the new X-Ray Free Electron Lasers to further test the hypothesis
but I don't know what the current status is. The effect also means that
in the vincinity of an electron to order hbar/mc, the field strength of
an electron is enough to spontaneously create pairs from the quantum
"vacuum".
Fred, to get my field Ec from an electron it would have to penetrate
down to .39 of L', the cell radius. It is probably a forbidden
operation.
This is all covered quite nicely in Milonni's "The Quantum
Vacuum: An Introduction to QED". But the quantum "vacuum" is more than
just John's pair-space. It includes a dynamical intersection "distance"
between the dual spacetimes.
Fred I think you can see that I insist on working from first
principles and I have put up a lot of numbers that you can take a shot
at. So have at it. I don't believe in all the arcane, the RS warped
geometry, or spacetime either for that matter. None of that mumbo
jumbo is necessary.
FrediFizzx
Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
http://www.vacuum-physics.com
John Polasek
.
|
|
|
| User: "FrediFizzx" |
|
| Title: Re: Schwinger's vacuum breakdown, a new interpretation |
03 Sep 2006 10:47:55 PM |
|
|
"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:jb4nf29a3olfnoc8q9t57nu39ib55f2tur@4ax.com...
On Sun, 3 Sep 2006 18:02:10 -0700, "FrediFizzx"
<fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"jpolasek" <jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1157319957.570536.11990@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
(New thread as the original one was bifurcated).
Schwinger (1951) (& see arXiv:hep-ph/9805507, Melissinos)
hypothesized
that vacuum would break down if, in a field with intensity Es, an
electron would amass the energy mc^2 over a path of the
(rationalized)
CWL hbar/mc. Thus
Es*el*Lrcw = mc^2 with
Es given as 1.3x10^18 V/m with hbar/mc or,
Ess would be 2.1x10^17 V/m with h/mc (regular) (1c)
being a statement of force time distance, with the two
interpretations
of CWL of being either h/mc or hbar/mc. (Schwinger paper not to
hand).
I developed my own version (unknowingly) of the Schwinger effect
While
trying to deduce the content of the vacuum for my Dual Space
theory.
It
can be seen in SI units (overly detailed), in my paper #1,
"Permittivity", on my website http://www.dualspace.net
I deduced that the vacuum consists of a matrix of elastically-bound
pairs of electrons and positrons centered in a cubic domain of
L = 3.514e-14m. Fig. 2 op cit
Each charge has the range of a half-cell:
L' = L/2 = CWL*FSC
The half-cell range L' of each charge exactly equals the Compton
wavelength scaled down by the FSC = 1/137. The FSC is really the
scale factor between pair-space and our universe, as amplified
below.
Not exactly. The real factor is the sqrt(alpha) which is about
1/11.706. And this is simply the ratio between electronic charge and
quantum "vacuum" charge (QVC) = +,- sqrt(hbar*c).
Fredi you need eps0 in sqrt(hbar*c*eps0) to make it coulombs and then
it's about 3.3 electrons or 1/sqrt(4pi*alpha) electrons.
Well, in SI units it is actually sqrt(4pi*eps0*hbar*c) since in SI Units
the relationship is,
alpha = e^2/(4pi*eps0*hbar*c)
In cgs units or Heaviside-Lorentz units, I don't need eps0. 1/4pi works
just fine for eps0. Anywise, the ratio for electronic charge to QVC is
always about 1/11.706 no matter what units you are using.
With QVC being charge
associated with gauge bosons -- most notably photons. And this is
just
taking vacuum polarization to tree level. The scale factor between
our
spacetime and pair spacetime is most likely much greater than this if
we
take into consideration a Randall-Sundrum RS1-like "warped geometry"
scenario. Most likely on the order of 10^18. But from our
perspective
it looks like on the order of alpha.
Fredi, what does your theory say about the Schwinger effect? What
features would cause the vacuum to emit pairs?
Exactly the same as what Melissinos is talking about. Any slowly
varying critical field strength electric or magnetic field should
produce pairs from the quantum "vacuum". You should be able to jack up
the field strength even more to spontaneously produce pions also.
However, we suspect and predict that neutrino pairs should be produced
also by critical field strength related to 15 MeV. Difficult to detect
though.
These polarizable charge pairs are what make the permitivity of
space
equal to eps = 8.8e-12 F/m (or Coul/volt-meter)
The dimension L was derived by assuming the cell or cube was a
capacitor which, with
Vc = 1.022MV
(from Vce = 2mc^2 of pair production)
across it, would produce 2e. This is pair-production, that is, Vc
was
required to push them out of the cell, and it is a reproduction of
Schwinger's effect (to cause vacuum breakdown with issuance of
pairs).
Permittivity eps was used in computing the capacity
C = eps*L^2/L = eps*L so that, fully "charged"
C*Vc = 2e
In other words as we gradually raise the voltage up to Vc the pair
will
approach the boundary and exit. We get the critical field
intensity
Ec
as
Ec = Vc/L = 2.88x10^19 V/m Eq. 8a
(It is impossible to impose a step voltage on a capacitor or on the
'primal cell' as this would require a singular delta function of
current).
It will be seen that
Ec = Ess/FSC or Ec = Ess* 137 times
that is, the ratio is nicely alpha, when using 'regular' CWL (1c
above).
We can calculate a maximum force Fmax:
Fmax = Ec*e = 4.6N Eq. 8b
Thus there is a linear spring constant K
K = Fmax/L' = 2.6x10^14 N/m Eq. 11a
Then the work done over L' (where F = Kx) is (both)
W = .5 Fmax * L' x 2 = mc^2 Eq. 8c
for both electron and positron.
Therefore we push for the use of h/mc in Ess above, and conclude
that
Schwinger's idea justifies the logic of dual space theory.
Some of the logic. The "dual space" part IMHO, is a natural follow
thru
to explain a necessary "hidden sector".
"Higgs-field Portal into Hidden Sectors" -- Brian Patt and Frank
Wilczek
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0605188
We can see here that even Wilczek is getting on the bandwagon of dual
spacetime scenarios with talk of "hidden sectors" and "phantom
matter".
;-) Yeah, baby!
Many other parameters of the vacuum follow immediately, the mass
and
charge density, resonant frequency, modulus of elasticity,
transmission
at the speed of light as shown in Eq. 9-13 op cit.
But the most important conclusion is that our stars came from
electrons
out of pair space, shored up by the fact that the electrons expand
by
1/FSC^3 or 2.5 million to become the density of iron, the flagship
element of our universe. The expansion energy is sufficient to
accelerate iron to the speed of light. (Eq. 13-19) of the DS book.
Briefly the energy density of pairspace times alpha^3 = rho-Fe*
c^2.
The above paragraph is messed up. Pions can be produced in the same
way
as e+e- pairs theoretically.
Fred I am talking about creation ab initio; no lab in the world can
extract just the electron. The Milossimos paper is about banging two
laser beams together just to produce pairs which are temporary sparks
and then they're short by 3 orders of magnitude.
I am talking about the electronbeams as currents that suck together
(Faraday) rather than repel and cook for 10Byrs to become our stars
full of elements. I'm saying the most they could be initially would be
iron; heavier atoms are by nuclear accretion.
How exactly does a group of electrons make protons and neutrons?
The Schwinger effect is a valuable and accurate (and reassuring)
hypothesis against which to test the conclusions of dual space
theory.
As Melissinos points out, this hypothesis has somewhat been shown to
be
true by the SLAC e144 experiment. There are some planned experiments
using the new X-Ray Free Electron Lasers to further test the
hypothesis
but I don't know what the current status is. The effect also means
that
in the vincinity of an electron to order hbar/mc, the field strength
of
an electron is enough to spontaneously create pairs from the quantum
"vacuum".
Fred, to get my field Ec from an electron it would have to penetrate
down to .39 of L', the cell radius. It is probably a forbidden
operation.
John, calculate the electric field strength of an electron at a distance
of hbar/mc from it. It is equal to Schwinger's Ec. What about closer
to the electron? Field strength is even higher so how do we even find
the original electron from all the electrons in the pairs that are being
produced at a distance of less than hbar/mc? LOL!
This is all covered quite nicely in Milonni's "The Quantum
Vacuum: An Introduction to QED". But the quantum "vacuum" is more
than
just John's pair-space. It includes a dynamical intersection
"distance"
between the dual spacetimes.
Fred I think you can see that I insist on working from first
principles and I have put up a lot of numbers that you can take a shot
at. So have at it. I don't believe in all the arcane, the RS warped
geometry, or spacetime either for that matter. None of that mumbo
jumbo is necessary.
Well, I already have told you many times that you are way off on your
"pair-space" density figures.
FrediFizzx
Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
http://www.vacuum-physics.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "John C. Polasek" |
|
| Title: Re: Schwinger's vacuum breakdown, a new interpretation |
04 Sep 2006 08:49:15 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 3 Sep 2006 20:47:55 -0700, "FrediFizzx"
<fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:jb4nf29a3olfnoc8q9t57nu39ib55f2tur@4ax.com...
On Sun, 3 Sep 2006 18:02:10 -0700, "FrediFizzx"
<fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"jpolasek" <jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1157319957.570536.11990@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
(New thread as the original one was bifurcated).
Schwinger (1951) (& see arXiv:hep-ph/9805507, Melissinos)
hypothesized
that vacuum would break down if, in a field with intensity Es, an
electron would amass the energy mc^2 over a path of the
(rationalized)
CWL hbar/mc. Thus
Es*el*Lrcw = mc^2 with
Es given as 1.3x10^18 V/m with hbar/mc or,
Ess would be 2.1x10^17 V/m with h/mc (regular) (1c)
being a statement of force time distance, with the two
interpretations
of CWL of being either h/mc or hbar/mc. (Schwinger paper not to
hand).
I developed my own version (unknowingly) of the Schwinger effect
While
trying to deduce the content of the vacuum for my Dual Space
theory.
It
can be seen in SI units (overly detailed), in my paper #1,
"Permittivity", on my website http://www.dualspace.net
I deduced that the vacuum consists of a matrix of elastically-bound
pairs of electrons and positrons centered in a cubic domain of
L = 3.514e-14m. Fig. 2 op cit
Each charge has the range of a half-cell:
L' = L/2 = CWL*FSC
The half-cell range L' of each charge exactly equals the Compton
wavelength scaled down by the FSC = 1/137. The FSC is really the
scale factor between pair-space and our universe, as amplified
below.
Not exactly. The real factor is the sqrt(alpha) which is about
1/11.706. And this is simply the ratio between electronic charge and
quantum "vacuum" charge (QVC) = +,- sqrt(hbar*c).
You need to stick to ratios because neither charge has coulombs any
more. If 1/4pi = eps0 you are losing the coulombs/volt-meter
coefficient which reveals that space can store energy at all.
Fredi you need eps0 in sqrt(hbar*c*eps0) to make it coulombs and then
it's about 3.3 electrons or 1/sqrt(4pi*alpha) electrons.
Well, in SI units it is actually sqrt(4pi*eps0*hbar*c) since in SI Units
the relationship is,
alpha = e^2/(4pi*eps0*hbar*c)
In cgs units or Heaviside-Lorentz units, I don't need eps0. 1/4pi works
just fine for eps0. Anywise, the ratio for electronic charge to QVC is
always about 1/11.706 no matter what units you are using.
OK 4pi and 11.7. But what is alpha the square of, that it should be
valuable in comparing two charge units?
With QVC being charge
associated with gauge bosons -- most notably photons. And this is
just
taking vacuum polarization to tree level. The scale factor between
our
spacetime and pair spacetime is most likely much greater than this if
we
take into consideration a Randall-Sundrum RS1-like "warped geometry"
scenario. Most likely on the order of 10^18. But from our
perspective
it looks like on the order of alpha.
Fredi, what does your theory say about the Schwinger effect? What
features would cause the vacuum to emit pairs?
Exactly the same as what Melissinos is talking about. Any slowly
varying critical field strength electric or magnetic field should
produce pairs from the quantum "vacuum". You should be able to jack up
the field strength even more to spontaneously produce pions also.
However, we suspect and predict that neutrino pairs should be produced
also by critical field strength related to 15 MeV. Difficult to detect
though.
15MeV? Over what distance, CWL? If vacuum breaks down at 1.022MeV, how
are you going to get to 15?
These polarizable charge pairs are what make the permitivity of
space
equal to eps = 8.8e-12 F/m (or Coul/volt-meter)
The dimension L was derived by assuming the cell or cube was a
capacitor which, with
Vc = 1.022MV
(from Vce = 2mc^2 of pair production)
across it, would produce 2e. This is pair-production, that is, Vc
was
required to push them out of the cell, and it is a reproduction of
Schwinger's effect (to cause vacuum breakdown with issuance of
pairs).
Permittivity eps was used in computing the capacity
C = eps*L^2/L = eps*L so that, fully "charged"
C*Vc = 2e
In other words as we gradually raise the voltage up to Vc the pair
will
approach the boundary and exit. We get the critical field
intensity
Ec
as
Ec = Vc/L = 2.88x10^19 V/m Eq. 8a
(It is impossible to impose a step voltage on a capacitor or on the
'primal cell' as this would require a singular delta function of
current).
It will be seen that
Ec = Ess/FSC or Ec = Ess* 137 times
that is, the ratio is nicely alpha, when using 'regular' CWL (1c
above).
We can calculate a maximum force Fmax:
Fmax = Ec*e = 4.6N Eq. 8b
Thus there is a linear spring constant K
K = Fmax/L' = 2.6x10^14 N/m Eq. 11a
Then the work done over L' (where F = Kx) is (both)
W = .5 Fmax * L' x 2 = mc^2 Eq. 8c
for both electron and positron.
Therefore we push for the use of h/mc in Ess above, and conclude
that
Schwinger's idea justifies the logic of dual space theory.
Some of the logic. The "dual space" part IMHO, is a natural follow
thru
to explain a necessary "hidden sector".
"Higgs-field Portal into Hidden Sectors" -- Brian Patt and Frank
Wilczek
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0605188
We can see here that even Wilczek is getting on the bandwagon of dual
spacetime scenarios with talk of "hidden sectors" and "phantom
matter".
;-) Yeah, baby!
Many other parameters of the vacuum follow immediately, the mass
and
charge density, resonant frequency, modulus of elasticity,
transmission
at the speed of light as shown in Eq. 9-13 op cit.
But the most important conclusion is that our stars came from
electrons
out of pair space, shored up by the fact that the electrons expand
by
1/FSC^3 or 2.5 million to become the density of iron, the flagship
element of our universe. The expansion energy is sufficient to
accelerate iron to the speed of light. (Eq. 13-19) of the DS book.
Briefly the energy density of pairspace times alpha^3 = rho-Fe*
c^2.
The above paragraph is messed up. Pions can be produced in the same
way
as e+e- pairs theoretically.
Fred I am talking about creation ab initio; no lab in the world can
extract just the electron. The Milossimos paper is about banging two
laser beams together just to produce pairs which are temporary sparks
and then they're short by 3 orders of magnitude.
I am talking about the electronbeams as currents that suck together
(Faraday) rather than repel and cook for 10Byrs to become our stars
full of elements. I'm saying the most they could be initially would be
iron; heavier atoms are by nuclear accretion.
How exactly does a group of electrons make protons and neutrons?
Just the same way it makes subdivisions after 10 billion years.
The Schwinger effect is a valuable and accurate (and reassuring)
hypothesis against which to test the conclusions of dual space
theory.
As Melissinos points out, this hypothesis has somewhat been shown to
be
true by the SLAC e144 experiment. There are some planned experiments
using the new X-Ray Free Electron Lasers to further test the
hypothesis
but I don't know what the current status is. The effect also means
that
in the vincinity of an electron to order hbar/mc, the field strength
of
an electron is enough to spontaneously create pairs from the quantum
"vacuum".
Fred, to get my field Ec from an electron it would have to penetrate
down to .39 of L', the cell radius. It is probably a forbidden
operation.
John, calculate the electric field strength of an electron at a distance
of hbar/mc from it. It is equal to Schwinger's Ec. What about closer
to the electron? Field strength is even higher so how do we even find
the original electron from all the electrons in the pairs that are being
produced at a distance of less than hbar/mc? LOL!
No Fred, it's 137x lower than Schwingers; it's 9.6e15 V/m vs 1.3e18
V/m.
This is all covered quite nicely in Milonni's "The Quantum
Vacuum: An Introduction to QED". But the quantum "vacuum" is more
than
just John's pair-space. It includes a dynamical intersection
"distance"
between the dual spacetimes.
Fred I think you can see that I insist on working from first
principles and I have put up a lot of numbers that you can take a shot
at. So have at it. I don't believe in all the arcane, the RS warped
geometry, or spacetime either for that matter. None of that mumbo
jumbo is necessary.
Well, I already have told you many times that you are way off on your
"pair-space" density figures.
Fred: I tried to make you see that thepairspace electron density of
1me/L^3 or 2.05e10 kg/m^3 is 2.5 million or 1/alpha^3 that of iron.
(Eq. 10 of paper). The uncreated electrons from pairspace, when freed
up (created, but not by electric field), expand by 1/alpha, reaching
the density of iron and the speed of light and become the raw material
for all the stars.
I had a whole book written on Dual Space in 2001 in which cell size
was twice as small, L = alpha x CWL which seemed so natural, till
after I pondered the 8:1 density ratio, that I saw that I needed to
double L to 3.514e-14m. As a result, the density turned to iron.
FrediFizzx
Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
http://www.vacuum-physics.com
John Polasek
http:www.dualspace.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "FrediFizzx" |
|
| Title: Re: Schwinger's vacuum breakdown, a new interpretation |
04 Sep 2006 02:15:28 PM |
|
|
"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:829of29bl9u7lnqkeavv8aprcfsk809rf0@4ax.com...
On Sun, 3 Sep 2006 20:47:55 -0700, "FrediFizzx"
<fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:jb4nf29a3olfnoc8q9t57nu39ib55f2tur@4ax.com...
On Sun, 3 Sep 2006 18:02:10 -0700, "FrediFizzx"
<fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"jpolasek" <jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1157319957.570536.11990@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
(New thread as the original one was bifurcated).
Schwinger (1951) (& see arXiv:hep-ph/9805507, Melissinos)
hypothesized
that vacuum would break down if, in a field with intensity Es,
an
electron would amass the energy mc^2 over a path of the
(rationalized)
CWL hbar/mc. Thus
Es*el*Lrcw = mc^2 with
Es given as 1.3x10^18 V/m with hbar/mc or,
Ess would be 2.1x10^17 V/m with h/mc (regular) (1c)
being a statement of force time distance, with the two
interpretations
of CWL of being either h/mc or hbar/mc. (Schwinger paper not to
hand).
I developed my own version (unknowingly) of the Schwinger effect
While
trying to deduce the content of the vacuum for my Dual Space
theory.
It
can be seen in SI units (overly detailed), in my paper #1,
"Permittivity", on my website http://www.dualspace.net
I deduced that the vacuum consists of a matrix of
elastically-bound
pairs of electrons and positrons centered in a cubic domain of
L = 3.514e-14m. Fig. 2 op cit
Each charge has the range of a half-cell:
L' = L/2 = CWL*FSC
The half-cell range L' of each charge exactly equals the Compton
wavelength scaled down by the FSC = 1/137. The FSC is really
the
scale factor between pair-space and our universe, as amplified
below.
Not exactly. The real factor is the sqrt(alpha) which is about
1/11.706. And this is simply the ratio between electronic charge
and
quantum "vacuum" charge (QVC) = +,- sqrt(hbar*c).
You need to stick to ratios because neither charge has coulombs any
more. If 1/4pi = eps0 you are losing the coulombs/volt-meter
coefficient which reveals that space can store energy at all.
I wish I could figure out a way to convince you that nothing is "lost"
no matter what unit system you are using. I will readily admit that the
process is more clear in SI units. Especially if that is the unit
system you are used to. However, most of the advanced literature is
written in gaussian cgs or Heaviside-Lorentz units with hbar = c = 1 so
one must also be able to understand the process in those unit systems
also.
Fredi you need eps0 in sqrt(hbar*c*eps0) to make it coulombs and
then
it's about 3.3 electrons or 1/sqrt(4pi*alpha) electrons.
Well, in SI units it is actually sqrt(4pi*eps0*hbar*c) since in SI
Units
the relationship is,
alpha = e^2/(4pi*eps0*hbar*c)
In cgs units or Heaviside-Lorentz units, I don't need eps0. 1/4pi
works
just fine for eps0. Anywise, the ratio for electronic charge to QVC
is
always about 1/11.706 no matter what units you are using.
OK 4pi and 11.7. But what is alpha the square of, that it should be
valuable in comparing two charge units?
It takes at least "two to tango" and with the e^2 in the expression we
have the two. So the sqrt(alpha) is the expression for one e. Very
simple.
With QVC being charge
associated with gauge bosons -- most notably photons. And this is
just
taking vacuum polarization to tree level. The scale factor
between
our
spacetime and pair spacetime is most likely much greater than this
if
we
take into consideration a Randall-Sundrum RS1-like "warped
geometry"
scenario. Most likely on the order of 10^18. But from our
perspective
it looks like on the order of alpha.
Fredi, what does your theory say about the Schwinger effect? What
features would cause the vacuum to emit pairs?
Exactly the same as what Melissinos is talking about. Any slowly
varying critical field strength electric or magnetic field should
produce pairs from the quantum "vacuum". You should be able to jack
up
the field strength even more to spontaneously produce pions also.
However, we suspect and predict that neutrino pairs should be
produced
also by critical field strength related to 15 MeV. Difficult to
detect
though.
15MeV? Over what distance, CWL? If vacuum breaks down at 1.022MeV, how
are you going to get to 15?
The distance is hbar*c/(15 MeV) ~= 1.3E-14 meters. Our "pair-space" has
more than just e+e- pairs in it. Muons and pions should also be able to
be produced spontaneously from the quantum "vacuum" with high enough
electric or magnetic field strength.
[snip uncommented text]
The Schwinger effect is a valuable and accurate (and
reassuring)
hypothesis against which to test the conclusions of dual space
theory.
As Melissinos points out, this hypothesis has somewhat been shown
to
be
true by the SLAC e144 experiment. There are some planned
experiments
using the new X-Ray Free Electron Lasers to further test the
hypothesis
but I don't know what the current status is. The effect also
means
that
in the vincinity of an electron to order hbar/mc, the field
strength
of
an electron is enough to spontaneously create pairs from the
quantum
"vacuum".
Fred, to get my field Ec from an electron it would have to
penetrate
down to .39 of L', the cell radius. It is probably a forbidden
operation.
John, calculate the electric field strength of an electron at a
distance
of hbar/mc from it. It is equal to Schwinger's Ec. What about
closer
to the electron? Field strength is even higher so how do we even
find
the original electron from all the electrons in the pairs that are
being
produced at a distance of less than hbar/mc? LOL!
No Fred, it's 137x lower than Schwingers; it's 9.6e15 V/m vs 1.3e18
V/m.
At the distance of hbar/mc? You didn't answer my question.
This is all covered quite nicely in Milonni's "The Quantum
Vacuum: An Introduction to QED". But the quantum "vacuum" is
more
than
just John's pair-space. It includes a dynamical intersection
"distance"
between the dual spacetimes.
Fred I think you can see that I insist on working from first
principles and I have put up a lot of numbers that you can take a
shot
at. So have at it. I don't believe in all the arcane, the RS warped
geometry, or spacetime either for that matter. None of that mumbo
jumbo is necessary.
Well, I already have told you many times that you are way off on your
"pair-space" density figures.
Fred: I tried to make you see that thepairspace electron density of
1me/L^3 or 2.05e10 kg/m^3 is 2.5 million or 1/alpha^3 that of iron.
(Eq. 10 of paper). The uncreated electrons from pairspace, when freed
up (created, but not by electric field), expand by 1/alpha, reaching
the density of iron and the speed of light and become the raw material
for all the stars.
You didn't answer my previous question on how a bunch of electrons can
make protons and neutrons.
I had a whole book written on Dual Space in 2001 in which cell size
was twice as small, L = alpha x CWL which seemed so natural, till
after I pondered the 8:1 density ratio, that I saw that I needed to
double L to 3.514e-14m. As a result, the density turned to iron.
That might be OK for e+e- density but if you take into consideration
qqbar density, it is way way higher than iron. Probably about 18 to 20
orders of magnitude higher.
FrediFizzx
Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
http://www.vacuum-physics.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "John C. Polasek" |
|
| Title: Re: Schwinger's vacuum breakdown, a new interpretation |
04 Sep 2006 04:56:36 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 12:15:28 -0700, "FrediFizzx"
<fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:829of29bl9u7lnqkeavv8aprcfsk809rf0@4ax.com...
On Sun, 3 Sep 2006 20:47:55 -0700, "FrediFizzx"
<fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:jb4nf29a3olfnoc8q9t57nu39ib55f2tur@4ax.com...
On Sun, 3 Sep 2006 18:02:10 -0700, "FrediFizzx"
<fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"jpolasek" <jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1157319957.570536.11990@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
(New thread as the original one was bifurcated).
Schwinger (1951) (& see arXiv:hep-ph/9805507, Melissinos)
hypothesized
that vacuum would break down if, in a field with intensity Es,
an
electron would amass the energy mc^2 over a path of the
(rationalized)
CWL hbar/mc. Thus
Es*el*Lrcw = mc^2 with
Es given as 1.3x10^18 V/m with hbar/mc or,
Ess would be 2.1x10^17 V/m with h/mc (regular) (1c)
being a statement of force time distance, with the two
interpretations
of CWL of being either h/mc or hbar/mc. (Schwinger paper not to
hand).
I developed my own version (unknowingly) of the Schwinger effect
While
trying to deduce the content of the vacuum for my Dual Space
theory.
It
can be seen in SI units (overly detailed), in my paper #1,
"Permittivity", on my website http://www.dualspace.net
I deduced that the vacuum consists of a matrix of
elastically-bound
pairs of electrons and positrons centered in a cubic domain of
L = 3.514e-14m. Fig. 2 op cit
Each charge has the range of a half-cell:
L' = L/2 = CWL*FSC
The half-cell range L' of each charge exactly equals the Compton
wavelength scaled down by the FSC = 1/137. The FSC is really
the
scale factor between pair-space and our universe, as amplified
below.
Not exactly. The real factor is the sqrt(alpha) which is about
1/11.706. And this is simply the ratio between electronic charge
and
quantum "vacuum" charge (QVC) = +,- sqrt(hbar*c).
So I guess the CWL divided by 11.706 would be an important metric in
your space. I have not heard you mention it. Certainly as a scale
factor between two worlds there must be important consequences other
than regarding your synthetic QVC.
You need to stick to ratios because neither charge has coulombs any
more. If 1/4pi = eps0 you are losing the coulombs/volt-meter
coefficient which reveals that space can store energy at all.
I wish I could figure out a way to convince you that nothing is "lost"
no matter what unit system you are using. I will readily admit that the
process is more clear in SI units. Especially if that is the unit
system you are used to. However, most of the advanced literature is
written in gaussian cgs or Heaviside-Lorentz units with hbar = c = 1 so
one must also be able to understand the process in those unit systems
also.
Fredi you need eps0 in sqrt(hbar*c*eps0) to make it coulombs and
then
it's about 3.3 electrons or 1/sqrt(4pi*alpha) electrons.
Well, in SI units it is actually sqrt(4pi*eps0*hbar*c) since in SI
Units
the relationship is,
alpha = e^2/(4pi*eps0*hbar*c)
In cgs units or Heaviside-Lorentz units, I don't need eps0. 1/4pi
works
just fine for eps0. Anywise, the ratio for electronic charge to QVC
is
always about 1/11.706 no matter what units you are using.
OK 4pi and 11.7. But what is alpha the square of, that it should be
valuable in comparing two charge units?
It takes at least "two to tango" and with the e^2 in the expression we
have the two. So the sqrt(alpha) is the expression for one e. Very
simple.
With QVC being charge
associated with gauge bosons -- most notably photons. And this is
just
taking vacuum polarization to tree level. The scale factor
between
our
spacetime and pair spacetime is most likely much greater than this
if
we
take into consideration a Randall-Sundrum RS1-like "warped
geometry"
scenario. Most likely on the order of 10^18. But from our
perspective
it looks like on the order of alpha.
Fredi, what does your theory say about the Schwinger effect? What
features would cause the vacuum to emit pairs?
Exactly the same as what Melissinos is talking about. Any slowly
varying critical field strength electric or magnetic field should
produce pairs from the quantum "vacuum". You should be able to jack
up
the field strength even more to spontaneously produce pions also.
However, we suspect and predict that neutrino pairs should be
produced
also by critical field strength related to 15 MeV. Difficult to
detect
though.
15MeV? Over what distance, CWL? If vacuum breaks down at 1.022MeV, how
are you going to get to 15?
15 MeV = 15 mc^2 and with 15MV the field strength is 1.15x10^21 V/m.
These are not believable numbers. Compare Schwinger 10^18 and he
regards his as a limit. JP
The distance is hbar*c/(15 MeV) ~= 1.3E-14 meters. Our "pair-space" has
more than just e+e- pairs in it. Muons and pions should also be able to
be produced spontaneously from the quantum "vacuum" with high enough
electric or magnetic field strength.
Muons and pions, yeah. They can't even blast out electron pairs with
the hottest lasers. What do you mean by "our pair-space" white man? I
would be glad to hear about muons etc. if you can be specific, as
their polarizability would enhance permittivity (and change my
numbers). Tell me about it.
[snip uncommented text]
The Schwinger effect is a valuable and accurate (and
reassuring)
hypothesis against which to test the conclusions of dual space
theory.
As Melissinos points out, this hypothesis has somewhat been shown
to
be
true by the SLAC e144 experiment. There are some planned
experiments
using the new X-Ray Free Electron Lasers to further test the
hypothesis
but I don't know what the current status is. The effect also
means
that
in the vincinity of an electron to order hbar/mc, the field
strength
of
an electron is enough to spontaneously create pairs from the
quantum
"vacuum".
Fred, to get my field Ec from an electron it would have to
penetrate
down to .39 of L', the cell radius. It is probably a forbidden
operation.
John, calculate the electric field strength of an electron at a
distance
of hbar/mc from it. It is equal to Schwinger's Ec. What about
closer
to the electron? Field strength is even higher so how do we even
find
the original electron from all the electrons in the pairs that are
being
produced at a distance of less than hbar/mc? LOL!
No Fred, it's 137x lower than Schwingers; it's 9.6e15 V/m vs 1.3e18
V/m.
At the distance of hbar/mc? You didn't answer my question.
Hbar/mc = 3.8e-13m and the electron field is 9.6e15V/m. Schwingers is
1.3e18V/m. You're alpha down from Schwinger. What did I do wrong?
This is all covered quite nicely in Milonni's "The Quantum
Vacuum: An Introduction to QED". But the quantum "vacuum" is
more
than
just John's pair-space. It includes a dynamical intersection
"distance"
between the dual spacetimes.
Fred I think you can see that I insist on working from first
principles and I have put up a lot of numbers that you can take a
shot
at. So have at it. I don't believe in all the arcane, the RS warped
geometry, or spacetime either for that matter. None of that mumbo
jumbo is necessary.
Well, I already have told you many times that you are way off on your
"pair-space" density figures.
Then tell me now what the pair-space density should be. I need
numbers.
Fred: I tried to make you see that thepairspace electron density of
1me/L^3 or 2.05e10 kg/m^3 is 2.5 million or 1/alpha^3 that of iron.
(Eq. 10 of paper). The uncreated electrons from pairspace, when freed
up (created, but not by electric field), expand by 1/alpha, reaching
the density of iron and the speed of light and become the raw material
for all the stars.
You didn't answer my previous question on how a bunch of electrons can
make protons and neutrons.
A whole lot easier than re-condensing from gases after the Big Bang.
I had a whole book written on Dual Space in 2001 in which cell size
was twice as small, L = alpha x CWL which seemed so natural, till
after I pondered the 8:1 density ratio, that I saw that I needed to
double L to 3.514e-14m. As a result, the density turned to iron.
That might be OK for e+e- density but if you take into consideration
qqbar density, it is way way higher than iron. Probably about 18 to 20
orders of magnitude higher.
I have not seen this term "qqbar density ". I have already said the
electron density in pairspace begins at 2.5 million times the density
of iron and you are telling me that qqbar density is lots greater than
iron. There is a failure here to communicate.
FrediFizzx
Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
http://www.vacuum-physics.com
This thread is getting hard to manage, to reply to. In Agent it's all
the same color
John Polasek
.
|
|
|
| User: "FrediFizzx" |
|
| Title: Re: Schwinger's vacuum breakdown, a new interpretation |
04 Sep 2006 05:56:04 PM |
|
|
"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:mb7pf254u0gk5fq1m9gkhe849s439lltgh@4ax.com...
On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 12:15:28 -0700, "FrediFizzx"
<fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:829of29bl9u7lnqkeavv8aprcfsk809rf0@4ax.com...
On Sun, 3 Sep 2006 20:47:55 -0700, "FrediFizzx"
<fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:jb4nf29a3olfnoc8q9t57nu39ib55f2tur@4ax.com...
On Sun, 3 Sep 2006 18:02:10 -0700, "FrediFizzx"
<fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
15MeV? Over what distance, CWL? If vacuum breaks down at 1.022MeV,
how
are you going to get to 15?
15 MeV = 15 mc^2 and with 15MV the field strength is 1.15x10^21 V/m.
These are not believable numbers. Compare Schwinger 10^18 and he
regards his as a limit. JP
The distance is hbar*c/(15 MeV) ~= 1.3E-14 meters. Our "pair-space"
has
more than just e+e- pairs in it. Muons and pions should also be able
to
be produced spontaneously from the quantum "vacuum" with high enough
electric or magnetic field strength.
Muons and pions, yeah. They can't even blast out electron pairs with
the hottest lasers. What do you mean by "our pair-space" white man? I
would be glad to hear about muons etc. if you can be specific, as
their polarizability would enhance permittivity (and change my
numbers). Tell me about it.
Don't need lasers. Crash electrons and positrons into each other to
produce the field high enough to produce muons and pions. You really
need to get yourself a good particle physics textbook. However, I never
seen one done up using SI units so you are going to be in trouble. The
closest is Griffiths' "Introduction to Elementary Particles" that uses
gaussian cgs and leaves in hbar and c almost everywhere. So easy to
convert to SI. I mean by "our pair-space" the one in QVC and the Spin
Matrix. Not yours. You have the start of the right concept but are
ignoring all the other content except for e+e- pairs. Our Spin Matrix
also gives a naive view of what the geometrical configuration of the
pair-space matrix might be like. And generates a first generation
fermion mass spectrum and more with only m_e*c^2 as input. Plus we get
two centers of symmetry; one centered on the e+e- LTV pairs and one
centered on uubar quark pairs. U(1) and SU(3)? A geometrical math
wizard is needed. ;-)
[snip uncommented text]
The Schwinger effect is a valuable and accurate (and
reassuring)
hypothesis against which to test the conclusions of dual
space
theory.
As Melissinos points out, this hypothesis has somewhat been
shown
to
be
true by the SLAC e144 experiment. There are some planned
experiments
using the new X-Ray Free Electron Lasers to further test the
hypothesis
but I don't know what the current status is. The effect also
means
that
in the vincinity of an electron to order hbar/mc, the field
strength
of
an electron is enough to spontaneously create pairs from the
quantum
"vacuum".
Fred, to get my field Ec from an electron it would have to
penetrate
down to .39 of L', the cell radius. It is probably a forbidden
operation.
John, calculate the electric field strength of an electron at a
distance
of hbar/mc from it. It is equal to Schwinger's Ec. What about
closer
to the electron? Field strength is even higher so how do we even
find
the original electron from all the electrons in the pairs that are
being
produced at a distance of less than hbar/mc? LOL!
No Fred, it's 137x lower than Schwingers; it's 9.6e15 V/m vs 1.3e18
V/m.
At the distance of hbar/mc? You didn't answer my question.
Hbar/mc = 3.8e-13m and the electron field is 9.6e15V/m. Schwingers is
1.3e18V/m. You're alpha down from Schwinger. What did I do wrong?
Answer my question first. How do we tell the original electron from the
electrons in the pairs being produced at a distance of less than hbar/mc
to the original electron. QFT is a *****, ain't it? ;-)
This is all covered quite nicely in Milonni's "The Quantum
Vacuum: An Introduction to QED". But the quantum "vacuum" is
more
than
just John's pair-space. It includes a dynamical intersection
"distance"
between the dual spacetimes.
Fred I think you can see that I insist on working from first
principles and I have put up a lot of numbers that you can take
a
shot
at. So have at it. I don't believe in all the arcane, the RS
warped
geometry, or spacetime either for that matter. None of that
mumbo
jumbo is necessary.
Well, I already have told you many times that you are way off on
your
"pair-space" density figures.
Then tell me now what the pair-space density should be. I need
numbers.
See below.
Fred: I tried to make you see that thepairspace electron density of
1me/L^3 or 2.05e10 kg/m^3 is 2.5 million or 1/alpha^3 that of iron.
(Eq. 10 of paper). The uncreated electrons from pairspace, when
freed
up (created, but not by electric field), expand by 1/alpha,
reaching
the density of iron and the speed of light and become the raw
material
for all the stars.
You didn't answer my previous question on how a bunch of electrons
can
make protons and neutrons.
A whole lot easier than re-condensing from gases after the Big Bang.
Well, how exactly?
I had a whole book written on Dual Space in 2001 in which cell size
was twice as small, L = alpha x CWL which seemed so natural, till
after I pondered the 8:1 density ratio, that I saw that I needed to
double L to 3.514e-14m. As a result, the density turned to iron.
That might be OK for e+e- density but if you take into consideration
qqbar density, it is way way higher than iron. Probably about 18 to
20
orders of magnitude higher.
I have not seen this term "qqbar density ". I have already said the
electron density in pairspace begins at 2.5 million times the density
of iron and you are telling me that qqbar density is lots greater than
iron. There is a failure here to communicate.
It is quark pair density. Here is "average density" number you asked
for the fermionic pair content of the quantum "vacuum". Using the
vacuum expectation value of vev = 246 GeV as a rough starting point for
max energy content of the "vacuum", I get about 8.5e29 kg/m^3 or about
19 orders of magnitude greater than your 2.05e10 kg/m^3. Why the huge
difference? Simple; you haven't accounted for *all* the content of
pair-space. There is one spot in your book that I think you get this
close to right indirectly but I am too lazy to look it up right now. ;-)
vev = 246 GeV corresponds to a length of about 8.02e-19 meters.
FrediFizzx
Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
http://www.vacuum-physics.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "John C. Polasek" |
|
| Title: Re: Schwinger's vacuum breakdown, a new interpretation |
04 Sep 2006 08:49:13 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 15:56:04 -0700, "FrediFizzx"
<fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:mb7pf254u0gk5fq1m9gkhe849s439lltgh@4ax.com...
On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 12:15:28 -0700, "FrediFizzx"
<fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:829of29bl9u7lnqkeavv8aprcfsk809rf0@4ax.com...
On Sun, 3 Sep 2006 20:47:55 -0700, "FrediFizzx"
<fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:jb4nf29a3olfnoc8q9t57nu39ib55f2tur@4ax.com...
On Sun, 3 Sep 2006 18:02:10 -0700, "FrediFizzx"
<fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
15MeV? Over what distance, CWL? If vacuum breaks down at 1.022MeV,
how
are you going to get to 15?
15 MeV = 15 mc^2 and with 15MV the field strength is 1.15x10^21 V/m.
These are not believable numbers. Compare Schwinger 10^18 and he
regards his as a limit. JP
The distance is hbar*c/(15 MeV) ~= 1.3E-14 meters. Our "pair-space"
has
more than just e+e- pairs in it. Muons and pions should also be able
to
be produced spontaneously from the quantum "vacuum" with high enough
electric or magnetic field strength.
Muons and pions, yeah. They can't even blast out electron pairs with
the hottest lasers. What do you mean by "our pair-space" white man? I
would be glad to hear about muons etc. if you can be specific, as
their polarizability would enhance permittivity (and change my
numbers). Tell me about it.
Don't need lasers. Crash electrons and positrons into each other to
produce the field high enough to produce muons and pions. You really
need to get yourself a good particle physics textbook. However, I never
seen one done up using SI units so you are going to be in trouble. The
closest is Griffiths' "Introduction to Elementary Particles" that uses
gaussian cgs and leaves in hbar and c almost everywhere. So easy to
convert to SI. I mean by "our pair-space" the one in QVC and the Spin
Matrix. Not yours. You have the start of the right concept but are
ignoring all the other content except for e+e- pairs. Our Spin Matrix
also gives a naive view of what the geometrical configuration of the
pair-space matrix might be like. And generates a first generation
fermion mass spectrum and more with only m_e*c^2 as input. Plus we get
two centers of symmetry; one centered on the e+e- LTV pairs and one
centered on uubar quark pairs. U(1) and SU(3)? A geometrical math
wizard is needed. ;-)
[snip uncommented text]
The Schwinger effect is a valuable and accurate (and
reassuring)
hypothesis against which to test the conclusions of dual
space
theory.
As Melissinos points out, this hypothesis has somewhat been
shown
to
be
true by the SLAC e144 experiment. There are some planned
experiments
using the new X-Ray Free Electron Lasers to further test the
hypothesis
but I don't know what the current status is. The effect also
means
that
in the vincinity of an electron to order hbar/mc, the field
strength
of
an electron is enough to spontaneously create pairs from the
quantum
"vacuum".
Fred, to get my field Ec from an electron it would have to
penetrate
down to .39 of L', the cell radius. It is probably a forbidden
operation.
John, calculate the electric field strength of an electron at a
distance
of hbar/mc from it. It is equal to Schwinger's Ec. What about
closer
to the electron? Field strength is even higher so how do we even
find
the original electron from all the electrons in the pairs that are
being
produced at a distance of less than hbar/mc? LOL!
No Fred, it's 137x lower than Schwingers; it's 9.6e15 V/m vs 1.3e18
V/m.
At the distance of hbar/mc? You didn't answer my question.
Hbar/mc = 3.8e-13m and the electron field is 9.6e15V/m. Schwingers is
1.3e18V/m. You're alpha down from Schwinger. What did I do wrong?
Answer my question first. How do we tell the original electron from the
electrons in the pairs being produced at a distance of less than hbar/mc
to the original electron. QFT is a *****, ain't it? ;-)
You haven't read the book that tries to tell all. The real laboratory
RCA electron has been created out of the pair space leaving its
positron behind and is traveling at c. Everything you can lay your
hand on is also, and everything came from only electrons. There's
nothing else in pairspace except the positrons that track its
electrons and duplicate reality, but with the major advantage they
don't have to lie about the effects in a vacuum. Your pions developed
in the real world from created electrons.
I showed it took .5mc2 to get the electron out of the cell and .5mc2
to accelerate to c. (Eq. 8) The electron is whizzing through
pairspace at the natural transmission velocity of pairspace. I showed
you c^2 = Y/rho in Eq. 12 of the permittivity paper.
You may be the only one that thinks there's all that other junk in the
vacuum.
This is all covered quite nicely in Milonni's "The Quantum
Vacuum: An Introduction to QED". But the quantum "vacuum" is
more
than
just John's pair-space. It includes a dynamical intersection
"distance"
between the dual spacetimes.
Fred I think you can see that I insist on working from first
principles and I have put up a lot of numbers that you can take
a
shot
at. So have at it. I don't believe in all the arcane, the RS
warped
geometry, or spacetime either for that matter. None of that
mumbo
jumbo is necessary.
Well, I already have told you many times that you are way off on
your
"pair-space" density figures.
Then tell me now what the pair-space density should be. I need
numbers.
See below.
Fred: I tried to make you see that thepairspace electron density of
1me/L^3 or 2.05e10 kg/m^3 is 2.5 million or 1/alpha^3 that of iron.
(Eq. 10 of paper). The uncreated electrons from pairspace, when
freed
up (created, but not by electric field), expand by 1/alpha,
reaching
the density of iron and the speed of light and become the raw
material
for all the stars.
You didn't answer my previous question on how a bunch of electrons
can
make protons and neutrons.
A whole lot easier than re-condensing from gases after the Big Bang.
Well, how exactly?
I had a whole book written on Dual Space in 2001 in which cell size
was twice as small, L = alpha x CWL which seemed so natural, till
after I pondered the 8:1 density ratio, that I saw that I needed to
double L to 3.514e-14m. As a result, the density turned to iron.
That might be OK for e+e- density but if you take into consideration
qqbar density, it is way way higher than iron. Probably about 18 to
20
orders of magnitude higher.
I have not seen this term "qqbar density ". I have already said the
electron density in pairspace begins at 2.5 million times the density
of iron and you are telling me that qqbar density is lots greater than
iron. There is a failure here to communicate.
It is quark pair density. Here is "average density" number you asked
for the fermionic pair content of the quantum "vacuum". Using the
vacuum expectation value of vev = 246 GeV as a rough starting point for
max energy content of the "vacuum", I get about 8.5e29 kg/m^3 or about
19 orders of magnitude greater than your 2.05e10 kg/m^3. Why the huge
difference? Simple; you haven't accounted for *all* the content of
pair-space. There is one spot in your book that I think you get this
close to right indirectly but I am too lazy to look it up right now. ;-)
vev = 246 GeV corresponds to a length of about 8.02e-19 meters.
All false Fredi. You are confusing 246 GeV of effort with 246 GeV of
results. The fact is the driver simply loses efficiency as you push
toward c. You can find a point where the next GeV input gives you 1
dyne cm. of output. The total energy equation sqrt(p2c2 + m2c4) is
bunk. mc2 is all you'll get.
FrediFizzx
Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
http://www.vacuum-physics.com
John Polasek
http:www.dualspace.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: Schwinger's vacuum breakdown, a new interpretation |
05 Sep 2006 09:11:50 AM |
|
|
The intrinsic space energy is the largest and most dynamic part of our
universe It creates universes,and they are immersed in it. Bert
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: Schwinger's vacuum breakdown, a new interpretation |
13 Sep 2006 10:00:44 AM |
|
|
jpolasek wrote:
I deduced that the vacuum consists of a matrix of elastically-bound
pairs of electrons and positrons centered in a cubic domain of
L =3D 3.514e-14m. Fig. 2 op cit
Each charge has the range of a half-cell:
L' =3D L/2 =3D CWL*FSC
The half-cell range L' of each charge exactly equals the Compton
wavelength scaled down by the FSC =3D 1/137. The FSC is really the scale
factor between pair-space and our universe, as amplified below.
[snip]
Many other parameters of the vacuum follow immediately, the mass and
charge density, resonant frequency, modulus of elasticity, transmission
at the speed of light as shown in Eq. 9-13 op cit.
Those el=E8ctr=F2ns are improper to the vacuum; all you need are the
fieldtrails of real charges, as they are what make up space:
<http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=3DAutymn+%22action-at-a-distance%=
22>.
All whits (quanta) are dimensional elements, remember? Remember my
messages about the inner and outer sizes of a charge? Your breakdown
is a bridge you didn't even build. The best you can do is find a
least-mass of the vacuum (universe), like what Millikan did for the
least-charge for oil.
Hey Fred, do you know of any use for the Planck charge? Like, could it
make scalar meson loops with masses under the pions? Does positronium
stay fresher longer with it?
-Aut
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
