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

There are very specific conditions to allow this physics: It works only for extremely high temperatures, when the thermal energy is much greater than the spacing between energy levels. It's been known for a while that high energy physics deviates from the low energy cases of spacetime: One of the things though you have mentioned,

''is fully justified by the derived formula for <H> shown below that. Note it goes to precisely zero when T goes to zero.''


I have read many science articles in my time and I have seen authors talk about temperatures go to zero. This is never the case. I can assure you, there is no case in wikipedia that will allow a system to go to precisely zero. It's very badly written just glancing over the material. Just read the first bit carefully:

''At high temperatures, when the thermal energy kBT is much greater than the spacing hν between energy levels, the exponential argument βhν is much less than one and the average energy becomes kBT''

You see that?

Average energy becomes k_B T!! That is, the energy becomes a more general explanation of k_BT, kinetic energy is still related to the thermal properties of the system!! You haven't disproven what I said, because you haven't taken either the physics properly into consideration or you didn't understand what you have read. This in no way disproves my claim that thermal properties of a system is linked to the motion of particles therein.

Another thing, let's be clear, when you read something like this:

''However, at low temperatures, when hν >> kBT, the average energy goes to zero''

is an approximation near zero kelvin, a system never actually reaches it. Again, by a mixture of bad writing and unclear physics, I won't hold you fully to blame for any ignorance.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Take a read of this: http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_classroom/light_lessons/thermal/heat.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

and even though originally I was the one who mentioned equipartition, I also mentioned this:

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No need. The ignorance is not mine. Your arguments are spurious. And I'm still waiting for you to deal with Jaffe's devastating critique of so-called vacuum ZPE. As I am still waiting for you to provide a link to even one reputable article backing your claim that ZPE contributes to temperature. As per my #63, #68.
You can't do either thing. We both know it. And I will ask again - do you have some issue with accepting general form of Stefan-Boltzmann law?

 

I linked you to Crowell who explained the thermal properties related to fluctuations. Did you forget this?
He's highly published.

 

I'll post it again for clarity: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=w8ZoDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA6&lpg=PA6&dq=do fluctuations have a temperature in spacetime?&source=bl&ots=CS7Oe7LJ7U&sig=-x4h21-AsDMrjTRr2-FsckVg9is&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi0nJKcn9LRAhWMDcAKHY73D_oQ6AEIKDAC#v=onepage&q=do fluctuations have a temperature in spacetime?&f=false

ps. I also stated Susskind teaches zero point energy fields in Stanford.

 

That is certainly my impression for what it's worth....We have gone to within a few billionth/millionth of a degree though [take your pick, I'm too lazy to check it out]
Are you saying that quantum mechanically a particle can still have some some motion even at zero K?
And how is this associated with the fact that H does not freeze at normal atmospheric pressures?

 

No I don't have an issue with the SB law, I have an issue with your understanding of the physics. A BADLY written article saying a system can reach zero energies = zero temperatures, is unphysical. Such a system doesn't exist, but you won't listen.

 

Well, it might actually be best to say, zero K doesn't exist and all there is, is motion. The absence of motion in a system, doesn't seem to be a physical rational picture.

And while I am not experienced in helium experiments, I'd say the same pressure rule applies to anything! I would say, no gas and no field can ever be frozen so that there is no motion in the field.

 

Crowell's arguments are related to highly speculative quantum gravity theories and as such have no relevance to ordinary matter systems where you have claimed ZPE provides some kind of 'temperature'. Deal with that case. The very simple but fundamental Stefan-Boltzmann law is a direct counterexample to your belief. That zero temperature is practically unattainable was explained in that Wiki article on Absolute Zero linked to earlier. It has nothing to do with existence of ZPE in any given system. Specific heat running rapidly to zero as T -> 0 does.

 

Someone is not heeding sound advice. Your appeal to inability to achieve absolute zero has squat to do with ZPE.

 

And yet you believe for some reason we can reach it.

 

Still, I admire your spunk. But you really need to start thinking about the physics harder.

While Van der Walls forces are elegant, they don't explain why a system can never reach zero temperatures, even when supposedly spacetime is devoid of matter or energy you will find, there is still energy there! It doesn't matter how much of this energy-matter removal from the system you do, you'll never get an absolutely cold fraction of spacetime.

 

Quote me as having so much as implied such let alone outright claimed that anywhere this thread (or anywhere else). You can't. So do the right thing and retract such nonsense. Don't put words in my mouth.

 

Oh... do you then retract that <H> can reach zero energies and zero temperatures?

 

Just one more nonsense statement to have to retract. Quote me, and while you're at it, the relevant Wiki article, as stating such. Getting yourself deeper into pooh with each post. Caution would behoove you.

 

I'm not wasting any more time on this thread, I have explained kinetic theory of motion as related to heat and I am quite finished explaining now.

 

So, not man enough to admit to being wrong and formally retracting erroneous claims. You started off looking quite professional here, but that has progressively unraveled. Not to worry - paddoboy has chummed up to you. Personally, that would worry me. But to each their own.

 

But what this says is that even at absolute zero some thermal motion remains, due to zero point energy, i.e. the energy remaining in the ground state of a quantum system. This is the opposite of claiming that such residual energy contributes to temperature.

Temperature is that property which determines the direction of spontaneous heat flow. If an ensemble consists of systems all in their ground states, no heat can flow out of it. Therefore it is at absolute zero, regardless of the amount of energy that may remain in those ground states.

So it seems to me that Q-reeus is quite right about this.

Wiki apparently thinks the same. I quote, from this article:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy , the following passage: "The uncertainty principle requires every quantum mechanical system to have a fluctuating zero-point energy greater than the minimum of its classical potential well. This results in motion even at absolute zero."

 

That is purely a result of the necessarily asymptotic nature of any attempt to approach absolute zero.