Violations of energy conservation in the early universe may explain dark energy

You might take comfort from the last part of 3rd para here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_zero
But it's proper context is simply to dispel the naive belief that all motion ceases at absolute zero. There is no contradiction between a state hypothetically at absolute zero having non-zero particle kinetic motions - as long as such are exclusively ZPE in nature.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You are simply not listening to me are you?

There is no way to define temperature without a motion. Temperature is motion, contrary to what you want to believe. We have known this since the virial relationships. Since equipartition was linked with temperature.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Then I take it you can cite a reliable source backing your assertion that ZPE contributes to a finite, thermodynamically defined, temperature?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you could actually reach zero point energy, in a classical vacuum, yes, that would represent zero kinetic motion of [any] system, whether that be on shell or off shell matter. But we know this isn't the case. Why? Because a vacuum is not Newtonian! It's as simple as that really.

 

No I argued against your claim that there is no link between zero point energy and the thermal properties generated by the motion of a system. Nevertheless, yes, I will provide a reference, to Crowell no less who has worked on fluctuations for years:

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id...ions have a temperature in spacetime?&f=false

 

By the way, who said thermodynamically defined? Cuz' I didn't.

I in no way believe for a moment, they generate a defined temperature. All we can say is that a temperature will fluctuate around the zero Kelvin scale but never reach it.

 

Please let me know if any of this is helping you or if its a waste of time?

 

You are now shifting the goal posts. So-called Unruh effect (more properly Unruh-Davies effect) has to do with a hypothetical thermal bath experienced by an observer undergoing proper acceleration. For which afaik it's still the case there is zero undisputed evidence for. I once did a rough calculation of how much Unruh temperature innermost shell electrons in an atom of say Uranium should be experiencing - and passing on to the atom in general. It was into the 10's of thousands of degrees Kelvin iirc.

Anyway, back to the proper context of my challenge - which is to cite a reliable authority backing your assertion ZPE contributes in a matter system (e.g. liquid Helium) to temperature as thermodynamically defined. That Wki article on Absolute zero I linked to provides the thermodynamic i.e. generally accepted definition of temperature btw - in response to your #66.

 

edit

 

Have I shifted the goal post, or just added information? Either way, my response was to your post claiming that there was no link to ground state fields and the thermal properties of motion; yet, the two are the same thing.

 

Are you able to answer the last passage in my #68? If not I agree we are wasting time continuing this round.

 

''Anyway, back to the proper context of my challenge - which is to cite a reliable authority backing your assertion ZPE contributes in a matter system (e.g. liquid Helium) to temperature as thermodynamically defined. That Wki article on Absolute zero I linked to provides the thermodynamic i.e. generally accepted definition of temperature btw ''


What is the definition of temperature, because I know the solid relationships between temperature and motion and they can be found

here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virial_theorem

Note, there are many types of definitions for temperature so you need to stop being vague and explain what you mean a bit clearer.

If you want to describe the temperature of a thing, you use this formula.

The same reasoning is behind this phenomenon: Brownian motion is the intrinsic motion of particles at subatomic levels.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_motion

 

This looks like a nice paper, I haven't read it yet, just a skim through.

http://jamesowenweatherall.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Sybil_de_Clark_April11.pdf

 

Neither Brownian motion nor the Virial theorem define temperature as generally accepted. This Wki article explains: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_temperature
I especially like the table uppermost entry here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_temperature#Table_of_thermodynamic_temperatures
Notice the peak emission wavelength corresponding to the accepted use of zero degrees Kelvin i.e. absolute zero?
Your ZPE motions contribute zero to radiant emission - or you maybe have a secret Puthoff style belief in 'harvesting vacuum ZPE'? Once the realization sinks in that ZPE has zero to do with temperature, this conversation should really cease.

 

Where would it claim that? Einstein won the nobel prize for his work on Brownian motion. I'd be very surprised to find out it isn't generally-accepted.

I'd also be surprised to find that kinetic thermal motion was disputed from the virial relationships as well, which do a pretty good job at approximating the temperature of a system.

 

So I left out the words 'the proper definition' immediately prior to the Wiki link, as not needed given the context, and that gave you the opportunity to turn that into 'this Wiki explains why Brownian motion and Virial theorem do not...'. You took it the wrong way. Deal with the fact of those table entries I mentioned. A solid say at a thermodynamically defined absolute zero has zero thermal emission. ZPE motions are there in that solid - but supply zero radiant emission. There is all you need to deal with.

 

What do you mean, zero radiant emission? Any charged particle that accelerates in space, has some kind of emission, its known as the Larmor formula. Regardless, its only in classical theory that a system can be defined at zero temperatures with zero motion. I have already explained, this isn't physical. The zero point of a system, doesn't actually exist!

 

ZPE could also be the CC of Einstein fame, correct?
ps: Don't worry a great deal, I'm actually with you on this.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Zero point ener

Could be yes. It could either contribute or be entirely responsible.

 

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equipartition_theorem#Failure_due_to_quantum_effects
"Neglecting the irrelevant zero-point energy term,..."
Which comment is fully justified by the derived formula for <H> shown below that. Note it goes to precisely zero when T goes to zero. Regardless of ZPE being present.
Do you have some basic issue with general validity of Stefan-Boltzmann law?: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html
I would hope not. Just another way of seeing that ZPE has no connection with temperature. Had enough of kicking a dead horse yet?