View Full Version : Unruh Implications
http://www.theorie.physik.uni-muenchen.de/~serge/T6/SS03-T6-LN8.pdf
Unruh Effect is a very interesting topic. It holds that an accelerating observer is coupled to the quantum vacuum state and virtual particles become real particles which create an effective heat bath around the accelerating observer. Unruh temperature being T = a/2Pi.
That is energy being applied to accelerate the observer becomes bifurcated and is used in part to cause the creation of real particles (mass) in the universe of the accelerating observer from virtual particles of the vacuum state of space.
This effectively causes the mass of an accelerating observer to appear to increase since like increments of energy increase to accelerate the mass results in less than directly proportional increments of acceleration.
This is very nearly the affect one sees with Relavistic Mass in Relativity. That is an apparent mass increase with velocity.
It establishes is an actual preferred frame in the form of the vacuum or void of space itself and that Relativity may infact merely be an algorithum which defines a decreasing energy transfer efficiency as being a mass increase.
The required energy is the same in either view but the bases are entirely different. Extended testing of an Unruh affect for relative velocity, then it may be shown that there is no actual mass increase but the extra energy required to increase velocity (accelerate) is being stored in space and not applied to the acceleration.
I am prohibited from discussing this further since the prediction of an Unruh type function (energy for acceleration being stored in space in lieu of actual mass increase that requires more energy) is from a non-scientific theory that is easily rejected as being obviously flawed.
Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.
James R
10-14-03, 11:12 PM
MacM:
Thankyou for the link to the theory. The Unruh effect does indeed appear to be an interesting topic.
Note that the effect is derived on the assumption that special relativity is correct.
<i>That is energy being applied to accelerate the observer becomes bifurcated and is used in part to cause the creation of real particles (mass) in the universe of the accelerating observer from virtual particles of the vacuum state of space.</i>
I don't think the article says that. It says that an accelerating observer will see a different vacuum state to a stationary observer, and this will result in the accelerating observer being seemingly surrounded by a heat-bath of real particles at the Unruh temperature.
<i>This effectively causes the mass of an accelerating observer to appear to increase since like increments of energy increase to accelerate the mass results in less than directly proportional increments of acceleration</i>
There is no causal link there. Relativistic mass increase is built into special relativity. The Unruh effect is a completely separate thing.
<i>It establishes is an actual preferred frame in the form of the vacuum or void of space itself and that Relativity may infact merely be an algorithum which defines a decreasing energy transfer efficiency as being a mass increase.</i>
That's wrong. There is no preferred reference frame mentioned. The article only refers to inertial vs. non-inertial reference frames.
<i>Extended testing of an Unruh affect for relative velocity, then it may be shown that there is no actual mass increase but the extra energy required to increase velocity (accelerate) is being stored in space and not applied to the acceleration.</i>
I don't think there is any energy from the spaceship going to the creation of particles in this effect.
James R.,
Thankyou for the link to the theory. The Unruh effect does indeed appear to be an interesting topic.
Note that the effect is derived on the assumption that special relativity is correct.
My point has been that Relativity may be correct but for the wrong reasons. This process adds "Cause" for the "Action"
That is energy being applied to accelerate the observer becomes bifurcated and is used in part to cause the creation of real particles (mass) in the universe of the accelerating observer from virtual particles of the vacuum state of space.
I don't think the article says that. It says that an accelerating observer will see a different vacuum state to a stationary observer, and this will result in the accelerating observer being seemingly surrounded by a heat-bath of real particles at the Unruh temperature.
ANS:Ah but it does say the above. See Page 7, later half of the next to last paragraph. AS READS: "......The detected particles are real; the energy for these particles comes from the agent that accelerates the detector."
This effectively causes the mass of an accelerating observer to appear to increase since like increments of energy increase to accelerate the mass results in less than directly proportional increments of acceleration
There is no causal link there. Relativistic mass increase is built into special relativity. The Unruh effect is a completely separate thing.
I agree Unruh is not an integral part of Relativity as it currently stands. My point is the showing of a coupling of our physics to the vacuum as a preferred frame which may ultimately result in changes in Relativity. Relativity may become more acceptable once the underlying "Causes" are identified, and understanding such causes may put constraints on Relativity where currently there are none and mathematical extrapolations into bizzar regions are unwarranted and invalid
It establishes is an actual preferred frame in the form of the vacuum or void of space itself and that Relativity may infact merely be an algorithum which defines a decreasing energy transfer efficiency as being a mass increase.
That's wrong. There is no preferred reference frame mentioned. The article only refers to inertial vs. non-inertial reference frames.
I agree that the article doesn't make that statement. It is my observation that it does link motion to the vacuum state of space. In that sense the Unruh Effect does have such a reference frame to space itself (which starts to look a whole lot like the foundations of an ether).
Extended testing of an Unruh affect for relative velocity, then it may be shown that there is no actual mass increase but the extra energy required to increase velocity (accelerate) is being stored in space and not applied to the acceleration.
I don't think there is any energy from the spaceship going to the creation of particles in this effect.
Yes it does. See above reference to Page 7.
Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.
James R
10-15-03, 12:16 AM
MacM:
<i>My point has been that Relativity may be correct but for the wrong reasons. This process adds "Cause" for the "Action"</i>
No. It doesn't do what you say it does.
Importantly, notice that the Unruh effect applies only to an <b>accelerated</b> object, whereas special relativistic mass increase applies to objects travelling at <b>constant speed</b>.
<i>See Page 7, later half of the next to last paragraph.</i>
There is no page 7 in the article linked.
<i>It is my observation that it does link motion to the vacuum state of space. In that sense the Unruh Effect does have such a reference frame to space itself (which starts to look a whole lot like the foundations of an ether).</i>
You misunderstand again.
The article simply says that if you start with an inertial frame, then the vacuum state of a frame which has a constant proper acceleration differs from the vacuum state of the inertial frame, and therefore particles are created. It does not refer to any special inertial frame, or to "space itself", whatever that is. An ether would be stationary only in one particular frame of reference, whereas with Unruh's effect you can start with any inertial frame you like. There is no ether concept implied in the article. In fact, since the article accepts special relativity, the concept of an ether is incompatible with Unruh's effect.
(BTW, I now accept that some energy from the accelerating source goes to the creation of the particles observed. The amount would be tiny, though, as is made clear in the last few paragraphs of the article.)
James R.,
My point has been that Relativity may be correct but for the wrong reasons. This process adds "Cause" for the "Action"
No. It doesn't do what you say it does.
Importantly, notice that the Unruh effect applies only to an accelerated object, whereas special relativistic mass increase applies to objects travelling at constant speed.
ANS: I do believe I clearly pointed out that is the case . That Unruh does not directly relate and that it is for acceleration not velocity.
My point is in the trend of the findings, that simular findings may be near at hand which will affect Relativity. I have not misunderstood this as applying to Relativity as you try to imply.
See Page 7, later half of the next to last paragraph.
There is no page 7 in the article linked.
ANS:Correction. The bottom of the page is marked 79 but on the PDF reader is shows it being page 7 of 7 pages. It is still a comment made under "Discussion of results" in the later half of the next to last paragraph of the paper.
It is my observation that it does link motion to the vacuum state of space. In that sense the Unruh Effect does have such a reference frame to space itself (which starts to look a whole lot like the foundations of an ether).
You misunderstand again.
The article simply says that if you start with an inertial frame, then the vacuum state of a frame which has a constant proper acceleration differs from the vacuum state of the inertial frame, and therefore particles are created. It does not refer to any special inertial frame, or to "space itself", whatever that is. An ether would be stationary only in one particular frame of reference, whereas with Unruh's effect you can start with any inertial frame you like. There is no ether concept implied in the article. In fact, since the article accepts special relativity, the concept of an ether is incompatible with Unruh's effect.
ANS:You once again are trying to two step a waltz. No the article does not use the words referance frame but it does state the particles are generated from the quantum vacuum which is space itself. I am making the observation that space is becoming a reference frame.
Further it happens that I view this exactly as it is stated and that is only a function of acceleration since there is no absolute velocity, the reference is always at the energy level of the observers velocity. I have referred to it as an energy spectrum.
So this finding is in complete agreement with my prior predictions. Although my predictions are then extrapolated to areas not yet discovered (and may or may not exist) but the Unruh Effect is consistant with my long held view. Although I anticipated a much stronger relationship. And I did not anticipate the exact mechanisim but only that energy would be drawn from an accelerating body and stored in space.
(BTW, I now accept that some energy from the accelerating source goes to the creation of the particles observed. The amount would be tiny, though, as is made clear in the last few paragraphs of the article.)
We are in agreement. Although we may disagree on the implications to be drawn from Unruh at this time
Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.
Originally posted by MacM
It establishes is an actual preferred frame in the form of the vacuum or void of space itself and that Relativity may infact merely be an algorithum which defines a decreasing energy transfer efficiency as being a mass increase.
As the proof starts by assuming a Minkowski/Rindler spacetime metric and caclulates acceleration wrt relativistic proper time and proper distance it's assumed there is no preferred frame. If this was proof of a preferred frame it contradicts the starting assumption so invalidates itself.
I’ve skipped very quickly through this and I need to read it more thoroughly, but this sounds a fascinating phenomenon, if indeed it is true.
Do you think there is any way, shape or form that this effect could account for an aether? It’s just that when I read of particles being created by mass and furthermore having properties that allow for a certain amount of compressibility, it reminds me of my own variable density aether theory and I get all excited!
I know, James R, that you say the creation of particles is tiny but the force of gravity is very week (about 10^40 weaker than the weak force – correct me if I’m wrong). So could this effect be responsible for gravity, even when a body is at rest?
thed,
Again the "preferred frame" is my interpretion of the phenomena and it only becomes so if you view it as being a frame that is always in reference to the energy state of the observer (i.e - at rest to the observer) such that it is a point of reference for any acceleration or inertia phenomena.
Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.
Dav57,
Do you think there is any way, shape or form that this effect could account for an aether?
ANS:That is precisely the view that is conjured up in my head. It is not a stationary ether like has been historically considered but an ether reference that is on a gradient so as to always be a rest reference to the observer which affects acceleration but not linear velocity which is relative to some other point than the background.
I know, James R, that you say the creation of particles is tiny but the force of gravity is very week (about 10^40 weaker than the weak force – correct me if I’m wrong). So could this effect be responsible for gravity, even when a body is at rest?
ANS:Precisely. Not only gravity but the property of inertia may be caused by it.
See: http://groups.msn.com/McCoinUniKEFTheory/home.htm
"Pictures"/"Calculus & Graphics" album/"UFiga-b".
Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius
Originally posted by MacM
thed,
Again the "preferred frame" is my interpretion of the phenomena
I know it is your interpretation but I'm saying that interpretation is wrong.
The proof of the Unruh effect is couched within the precepts of Relativity, it assumes no preferred frames. To say there is a preferred frame, or to say this is the proof of same, disproves Relativity. Ergo the basis of the proof is flawed.
It's a bad example of proof by contradiction that people seem to struggle with around here.
and it only becomes so if you view it as being a frame that is always in reference to the energy state of the observer (i.e - at rest to the observer) such that it is a point of reference for any acceleration or inertia phenomena.
The whole point of a preferred frame is that everything can be measured with respect to it. It is the 0 point in the Universe, the point at which all axes converge.
There is nothing in the Unruh Effect that suggests this.
Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.
You'd do well to listen to your own advice.
thed,
The whole point of a preferred frame is that everything can be measured with respect to it. It is the 0 point in the Universe, the point at which all axes converge.
There is nothing in the Unruh Effect that suggests this.
We are actually in agreement on this. The suggestion is that there may be a different type of reference. It is not a universal "0" or rest reference but a dynamic reference that follows the observers energy level and only reacts to changes therein (i.e. - inertia and acceleration). It is simular to the affect that makes it appear we are each at the center of the universe.
This would cause each observer moving with a relative velocity to each other to consider themselves as at rest and the other observer being in motion.
I'm not sure I am getting these distinctions clear enough.
Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.
Originally posted by MacM
thed,
This would cause each observer moving with a relative velocity to each other to consider themselves as at rest and the other observer being in motion.
That's the basic precept of Relativity => no preferred frame.
thed,
That's the basic precept of Relativity => no preferred frame
ANS:We agree. The only difference is this suggests a physical cause as opposed to "it simply is" mathematically.
Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.
blackholesun
10-15-03, 11:38 PM
Originally posted by MacM
thed,
ANS:We agree. The only difference is this suggests a physical cause as opposed to "it simply is" mathematically.
No it isn't. The Unruh effect is a CAUSE from the EFFECT of accelerating. You of all people should know of cause and effect since it seems it's you're whole goal in life to understand. It says nothing about being the cause of the relativistic effects. And don't say it's YOUR interpretation of it. I'd like to see what the authors of the paper would have to say to that really.
blackholesun,
Apparently you misunderstood my statement. My comment wasn't regarding the Unruh Effect perse but the idea that extending the evidence of a link between the vacuum and reality could supply a physical basis (causes) for Relativity. Not that Unruh was the link. I was merely thinking out loud about the possibilities of future discoveries of such a causal link.
Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.
I have to keep my posts realy short these days:( but I feel that inertia is a bit of an enigma! and I never feel happy with the explanations I read.
I have mentioned the Pioneer 10 & 11 problem before but nobody seems to know anything about this mysterious force that is acting on the ships to slow them down.
I always believed an aether was at work here, but could the unruh effect be to blame?
If you don't know much about the Pioneer problem, just do a search on Google - you should find something......
MacM, your link doesn't work:(
Dav57,
I always believed an aether was at work here, but could the unruh effect be to blame?
ANS: Not likely. Unruh is only effective during periods of acceleration not linear velocity.
Another confusion factor over the issue of those two craft is that the affect has only been seen in those two craft which are of simular design. Other craft have not experienced the same problem. There appears to be something unique about those particular craft that is causing the deviation.
(For those that might not know what problem we are speaking of: Two deep space vehicles are not where they are supposed to be by d = v x t. That is something is putting them where they don't belong mathematically. For more information on this issue go to:
http://www.enterprisemission.com/speedlight.html
and also:UniKEF/Documents/Abstract/Vol_1, lines 1650-1710 and Vol_3, lines 3545 - 3635 at my url below.)
Initially I became excited because another prediction is that in space away from the mass of earth, etc., we will find that d = vt is not valid for all observers but varies in proportion to the mass of the observer. But that soon was shown not to be the cause for the current observation.
My url had typo's. It has been repaired. Thanks for the heads up.
http://groups.msn.com/McCoinUniKEFTheory/home.htm
Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.
MacM,
This article speaks of NASA's confirmation of a *variable* speed of light....GULP....whatever will the relativists say about that:D
So there's no possibility of an aether being responsible for this anomaly???
I say this because, if there were an aether (particularly with variable density), then it wouldn't be too difficult to assume the speed of light could vary as it propergates through it.
I bet the relatavists really, really, REALLY hate this thread already
:D
Originally posted by dav57
MacM,
This article speaks of NASA's confirmation of a *variable* speed of light....GULP....whatever will the relativists say about that:D
Yeh, uhu, uhu, uhu, uhu. An article by a confirmed kook and all round loon using valid research to confirm their private theory is really scary to the Relativists. Shock horror, hoaxland will be saying that there is a geometric relation between the Pioneer probes and Cydonia.
So there's no possibility of an aether being responsible for this anomaly???
That was rhetorical right?
I say this because, if there were an aether (particularly with variable density), then it wouldn't be too difficult to assume the speed of light could vary as it propergates through it.
Funny that no experiment, in the last hundred years or more, has ever measured a varying speed of light, for a given medium.
I bet the relatavists really, really, REALLY hate this thread already
:D
Just hate people jumping on stupid ideas and trying to sound like it's proof of something no one else can find.
As MacM points out, other remote probes, like the Voyagers, are not being affected AFAIK. Given the twenty or more years we've been moving through space at high speed you might expect 'ether drag' to have had an effect on them all.
thed,
As MacM points out, other remote probes, like the Voyagers, are not being affected AFAIK. Given the twenty or more years we've been moving through space at high speed you might expect 'ether drag' to have had an effect on them all.
ANS: It was this very fact that left the NASA researchers with egg on their face after having made the announcement about the varying speed of light being the answer.
They had come up with an interesting way to account for the deviation of these two probes but failed to look at other probes to realize it wasn't consistant to all probes.
Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius
Dav57,
So there's no possibility of an aether being responsible for this anomaly???
ANS:I wouldn't go so far as to endorse this statement but simply state that any ether that might be there doesn't have the properties historically attributed to it.
In my case I don't refer to an ether but a field with an energy gradient.
But in either case neither have been detected (Except Miller did re-run the MMX some years later with a vastly larger and improved design and did repeatable measure earths motion and even periodic pertabations corresponding to its rotation.
The data however was only about 1/3 (as I recall) of what it should have been and that prompted the concept of entrained ether. That is mass tends to drag local ether with them which masked the initial MMX experiment.
But by the time this information became published (several years after Relativity became accepted) it never got pursued. It got ignored.
Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.
Funny that no experiment, in the last hundred years or more, has ever measured a varying speed of light, for a given medium.
Well, Thed, all the experiments I know of too haven't measured a variable speed of light for a given medium, this I agree with.
However, hold on a second, we DO know that the speed of light DOES vary depending on the properties of the medium it is propergating through and there have been experiments that have reduced the speed of light to below walking pace (through a super-cooled gas, I believe).
Now, if this gas were in a very long container such that one end was hot and gradually cooled as it reached the other end, we would see a gradual variation in light speed - would we not?:p
So what makes you so sure space can't have similar properties?
Originally posted by MacM
thed,
ANS: It was this very fact that left the NASA researchers with egg on their face after having made the announcement about the varying speed of light being the answer.
Where did anyone from NASA say the answer was a varying light speed? Hoagland claims that a paper supports his position on so called Hyperdimensional Physics, whatever that means. If you read the paper Hoagland references, it mentions the word "light" twice, it never says light speed is variable.
They had come up with an interesting way to account for the deviation of these two probes but failed to look at other probes to realize it wasn't consistant to all probes.
The conclusion of the paper is that all known effects have been ruled out. If the anomalous variation is real something unknown is causing it. Anything else is wild supposition.
No physicist would make the claim that light speed is variable without very strong, irrefutable, evidence. It would become major news as a result. This never happened in this case.
James R
10-17-03, 03:22 AM
<i>I have mentioned the Pioneer 10 & 11 problem before but nobody seems to know anything about this mysterious force that is acting on the ships to slow them down.</i>
The best theory I have seen involves anisotropic radiation of heat by the spacecraft in question.
Originally posted by dav57
Funny that no experiment, in the last hundred years or more, has ever measured a varying speed of light, for a given medium.
Well, Thed, all the experiments I know of too haven't measured a variable speed of light for a given medium, this I agree with.
Glad we agree on that then.
However, hold on a second, we DO know that the speed of light DOES vary depending on the properties of the medium it is propergating through and there have been experiments that have reduced the speed of light to below walking pace (through a super-cooled gas, I believe).
Now, if this gas were in a very long container such that one end was hot and gradually cooled as it reached the other end, we would see a gradual variation in light speed - would we not?
So what makes you so sure space can't have similar properties?
No problem with that as it is known physics. You seem to be forgetting that your original comment was about a varying light speed due to an Aether. That is what I was addressing and why I qualified my statement with; for a given medium.
There is a world of difference between; Light speed depends on the medium and Light speed is invariant between intertial frames. When people mention Aether and lightspeed they are usually arguing against the latter.
James R,
Note Para 3.1 at this link.....
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9903/9903024.pdf
What do you think about this because I'm interested about this whole enigma.
James R
10-18-03, 09:36 AM
dav57:
They seem to think what I think - anisotropic heat loss (and/or gas leaks from the spacecraft). The precise mechanism, though, remains unidentified, according to the paper.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.