sci.physics.electromag

"Benj" wrote in message
news:483e7416-c055-4346-94b2-b471c11f7dab@a22g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 6, 1:44 am, "FrediFizzx" wrote:
>
>> "According to the modern view the elementary particles (electrons,
>> neutrinos, quarks, etc.) are excitations of some more fundamental
>> medium
>> called the quantum vacuum. This is the new ether of the 21st
>> century.
>> The electromagnetic and gravitational fields, as well as the fields
>> transferring the weak and the strong interactions, all represent
>> different types of collective motion of the quantum vacuum."
>
> Actually this doesn't make much sense either! I don't mean the
> existence of some medium which is the basis of the four basic
> interactions, but rather the name "quantum vacuum". It is obvious
> that since it represents properties of space, it cannot be a "void" or
> a "vacuum". It should properly be called the "quantum aether" to
> eliminate the misleading name. But establishment physics is SO set on
> denying the existence of classical aether that they spew the "vacuum"
> dogma even in the face of irrefutable evidence that space is filled
> with some kind of interesting substance.

Well, we could haggle over a name or discuss what a modern ether might
be that Volovik is talking about. I prefer the latter. The main issue
that I see is does empty space by itself have certain geometric
properties or does the geometric properties that we notice simply come
from the interaction of quantum objects (known and unknown)? I suspect
that the space and time that we know and love are defined by the
interactions of said quantum objects. And that is basically what
Volovik found out from his studies of superfluid helium. Of course it
is just an analogy but I think a possible scenario.

> Which raises and even MORE
> interesting question: If space is filled with Quantum Aether, is it
> somehow possible to create a "hole" in that aether which would
> actually BE a "true" vacuum or void? In other words a space devoid of
> all properties (including the four interactions).

How big of a hole? ;-)

>> Most likely we just don't know what all the quantum objects are yet.
>> Or
>> their possible interactional configurations. Hopefully we will get
>> some
>> more clues after the LHC has been running for awhile.
>
> Well, provided it doesn't open a black hole and the earth gets sucked
> into it...

Quantum black holes would be very unstable and decay rapidly provided
LHC could even produce one which I doubt it can. Many people were
worried about a similar situation with RHIC; it didn't happen. I'm not
worried about it even the tiniest bit. Smash away! ;-) We have
quantum objects hitting the earth's atmosphere with more energy than LHC
already.

Best,

Fred Diether
Co-moderator sci.physics.foundations