1. It seems that vacuum energy, or 'quintessence', is now seen as being the dominant form of mass-energy in the universe. Does this represent a return to the idea of a universal cosmic medium equivalent to the 'aether'? 2. Do temperature studies showing space to be flat (in terms of distances and angles) contradict the notion of curved space - or are these two issues unconnected?
The vacuum seems to be filled with fields which have a small amount of energy even in their ground state. But physicists do not consider this to be an ether, because energy is not viewed as a substance at all. A flat universe is Euclidean on average large scales, but is still locally curved from the presence of mass.
I believe that what we think of as "substance" is nothing more than chrystalized energy, I think that the very small M-branes imprisons energy and provides the chrystal-lattice that creates the visible 3d "islands of stabillity" that let the energy be measured again and again as a more or less in same location, giving it substancelike quality. More or less is a very important notion here. I believe that Heisenberg uncertainty and Planck limits, kind of describe the degrees of freedom (call it quantumstates) that the energy has to roam within the M-brane orbifold. But what we see as substance i believe is kind of only the tip of the visible iceberg while the other part of the quanta is locked up in the other dimensions. It could well be , that the universe is deterministic after all, once we find out how the energy travels/distributes through the other planes.
Is it reasonable to say that waves give rise to energy and particles give rise to matter - IOW that energy and mass are dual aspects of an underlying substance in the same way that particles and waves are dual aspects of some underlying quanta? If energy is not substance how is it best thought of?
Traditionally, the capacity to do work. In modern physics, everything seems to be about field theory. The geometric structure of the universe comes from these fields as opposed to substances, and at each point of the field there is a strength value or capacity for work. Fields apply to the 4 forces as well as matter. What exactly this varying field strength is, right now is difficult to answer. In GR, it seems the field strength is replaced by the amount of curvature. But there is of yet no quantm theory of spacetime to explain exactly exactly how everything ties together. String theory and loop quantum gravity are 2 examples of potential quantum gravity theories.
Beercules, Why would anyone refer to Vacuum energy as being some samll amount? If you surf ZPE, Vacuum Energy or Chiral Condensate, you will find numerous reference to extreme energy density. I have seen 2E138 ergs/cm^3. I haven't converted to see the equality between these two numbers but both are huge. 2E138 ergs/cm^3 converts into mass (by E=mc^2) into enough material to create another whole universe/cm^3!!! ********************* Extract ********************** For light waves in space, the same condition holds. For every possible color of light, that includes the ones we can’t see, there is a non-zero amount of that light. Add up the energy for all those different frequencies of light and the amount of energy in a given space is enormous, even mind boggling, ranging from 10^36 to 10^70 Joules/m3. In simplistic terms it has been said that there is enough energy in the volume the size of a coffee cup to boil away Earth’s oceans. - that’s one strong cup of coffee! For a while a lot of physics thought that concept was too hard to swallow. This vacuum energy is more widely accepted today. What evidence shows that it exists? First predicted in 1948, the vacuum energy has been linked to a number of experimental observations. Examples include the Casimir effect, Van der Waal forces, the Lamb-Retherford Shift, explanations of the Planck blackbody radiation spectrum, the stability of the ground state of the hydrogen atom from radiative collapse, and the effect of cavities to inhibit or enhance the spontaneous emission from excited atoms. The Casimir Effect: The most straight-forward evidence for vacuum energy is the Casimir effect. Get two metal plates close enough together and this vacuum energy will push them together. This is because the plates block out the light waves that are too big to fit between the plates. Eventually you have more waves bouncing on the outside than from the inside, the plates will get pushed together from this difference in light pressure. This effect has been experimentally demonstrated. Can we tap into this energy? It is doubtful that this can be tapped, and if it could be tapped, it is unknown what the secondary consequences would be. Remember that this is our lowest energy point. To get energy out, you presumably need to be at a lower energy state. Theoretical methods have been suggested to take advantage of the Casimir effect to extract energy (let the plates collapse and do work in the process) since the region inside the Casimir cavity can be interpreted as being at a lower energy state. Such concepts are only at the point of theoretical exercises at this point. With such large amount of energy, why is it so hard to notice? Imagine, for example, if you lived on a large plateau, so large that you didn’t know you were 1000 ft up. From your point of view, your ground is at zero height. As long as your not near the edge of your 1000 ft plateau, you won’t fall off, and you will never know that your zero is really 1000. It’s kind of the same way with this vacuum energy. It is essentially our zero reference point.
So , we need to dig really hard with huge particle accellerators to create new reference pointsPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Actually, most physicists would probably argue the amount of energy in the vacuum is so small we have no use for it, even if we could extract it. Current theory seems to predict a huge amount of energy in the vacuum, but that rate isn't observed. No one really knows why it is so small, or what kind of mechanism would allow it to be so. But that is just another problem for physicists to worry about.
Agree Beercules, ANS: I would agree with that. For the longest time we thought it was a void. Then we see "Virtual Particles" and start to probe. Theory says it is packed dense with energy but we are only cracking the surface. Nobody really knows yet what is going on.
2E138 ergs/cm^3? The most extreme I've heard of is the Planck energy density ~10<sup>114</sup> ergs/cc, related to the Planck density ~10<sup>94</sup> grams/cc,equal to the mass of 10<sup>40</sup> "universes" packed into a cubic contimeter. Where did you see this number?I was under the impression that the Planck scale was the most "extreme" physically possible.
Link Q8or, I'll try and find it I have read several different sites and I think three gave simular theoretical densities. That prompted me to coin the term "Super Solid Space" which got me in just a bit of trouble on this site once.:bugeye: But I have an extensive library of such links and I will post it as soon as I locate it. But be advised they also talk about the disparity of the theoretical calculation and multiple magnitues differences in current physical testing. So nobody is saying that IS the density.
@Vortexx Quote----------------------------- <sup>I believe that what we think of as "substance" is nothing more than chrystalized energy, I think that the very small M-branes imprisons energy and provides the chrystal-lattice that creates the visible 3d "islands of stability" </sup> ------------------------------------- Superb!. The idea that the extra mass is actually an interaction of extra dimensions is an intriguing one. I believe that some have linked gravity (<i>leaking from another dimension</i>), but this is the first i`ve heard of saying that the dark energy is the primordial energy from the original branes...
