Nothing wrong with posting the pros and cons of both sides of a debate when their is some unknowns and doubt.That of course will continue as you should know.
Violations of energy conservation in the early universe may explain dark energy
- Thread starter paddoboy
- Start date
Nothing wrong with posting the pros and cons of both sides of a debate when their is some unknowns and doubt.That of course will continue as you should know.
SimonsCat
Registered Member
If you want, you take what I said and take the following as its mathematical statement:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/fluctuations-and-curvature-in-an-expanding-universe.158689/
No, I just think there is at least one more self-consistent theories out there: https://arxiv.org/abs/1507.07809
See appendix A, 5 A. Central body metric, for imo a very good reason why that theory is superior to GR. I discovered a self-consistency failure in GR, not present in Yilmaz gravity, by considering basic metric global consistency requirements for a thin self-supporting matter shell, but never developed the idea fully. One day maybe....
Yes but as per Carroll's argument, it'a matter of what one counts as sensibly 'energy content' within the classical gravity context. 'Gravitational energy' within GR - certainly in the large-scale cosmological setting, is not one of them. Philip Gibbs for instance argues otherwise, but I think wrongly so.
Are you also a member at PhysicsForums.com? If so, tell you what. Try convincingly arguing your pov re 'vacuum fluctuations' with Arnold Neumaier in this thread:
https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/vacuum-fluctuation-myth/#comments
Which is a follow-on to the article: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/vacuum-fluctuation-myth/
My reason in particular for siding with Neumaier, is L.Jaffe's excellent article tearing apart the popular notion of Casimir force as 'proof' of 'vacuum ZPE fluctuations'. Since he has shown (and afaik no-one has challenged his analysis) that van der Walls type interactions - always operating between matter particles - accounts for 100% of the observed Casimir force - do the sums. How much is left over for so-called 'ZPE fluctuations'?
SimonsCat
Registered Member
Well I could go into why zero point energy exists, why it was predicted from Planck's equation. I could go into why spacetime uncertainty produces particles and why the curvature of spacetime is intimately related to those fluctuations.... but I won't create an account on another forum just to get into an academic argument. Be clear though, the majority of scientists in the field, do not doubt their existences.
SimonsCat
Registered Member
The vacuum simply is not Newtonian, its quantum mechanical; with field theory, comes the spontaneous creation of particles at the fundamental level. A vacuum is not an empty thing: we once believed if you removed all the energy in a vacuum, what would remain would be a perfect vacuum, but experimentation proves somewhat more or less that these fields exist, with the refusal of a system to reach absolute zero temperatures.
SimonsCat
Registered Member
Let me explain how Planck theorized its existence:
The temperature is sometimes given as:
$$\frac{1}{T} = \frac{\Delta S}{\Delta E}$$
While not a proof in itself, you can see that temperature becomes mathematically ill-defined when $$T \rightarrow 0$$. The energy of a Planck oscillator is given as
$$\bar{E} = \frac{h \nu}{2}\frac{\exp{\frac{h \nu}{kT}}}{\exp{\frac{h \nu}{kT}}}$$
using algebra this is rewritten as
$$\bar{E} = \frac{h \nu}{2} + \frac{h \nu}{\exp{\frac{h \nu}{kT}} - 1}$$
It is shown here that $$T = 0$$ is actually unacheivable - doing so, makes $$E \rightarrow \infty$$. Why is this?
Planck said the existence of a zero point field is a radically new concept in field theory, but he explains that motion is a part of nature and the fact a temperature cannot be made to tend to zero, is evidence of such a ground state field.
The existence of virtual particles explains why the zero temperature can never be reached, instead of believing it would cost more than the energy in the observable universe, to make it do so. Einstein also implemented zero point energy into his equations, it is unclear to me who got there first!
The temperature is sometimes given as:
$$\frac{1}{T} = \frac{\Delta S}{\Delta E}$$
While not a proof in itself, you can see that temperature becomes mathematically ill-defined when $$T \rightarrow 0$$. The energy of a Planck oscillator is given as
$$\bar{E} = \frac{h \nu}{2}\frac{\exp{\frac{h \nu}{kT}}}{\exp{\frac{h \nu}{kT}}}$$
using algebra this is rewritten as
$$\bar{E} = \frac{h \nu}{2} + \frac{h \nu}{\exp{\frac{h \nu}{kT}} - 1}$$
It is shown here that $$T = 0$$ is actually unacheivable - doing so, makes $$E \rightarrow \infty$$. Why is this?
Planck said the existence of a zero point field is a radically new concept in field theory, but he explains that motion is a part of nature and the fact a temperature cannot be made to tend to zero, is evidence of such a ground state field.
The existence of virtual particles explains why the zero temperature can never be reached, instead of believing it would cost more than the energy in the observable universe, to make it do so. Einstein also implemented zero point energy into his equations, it is unclear to me who got there first!
With paddoboy's 'stamp of approval' given, should I hesitate to respond? Yeah. See my last post above. Explain how there can be any ZPE contribution to Casimir force, given Jaffe's treatment basically excluding it!
Your basic argument evidently relies on existence of a granular spacetime presumably with 'atoms' of around Planck length spatial size. Such as LQG advocates. Maybe it is something like LQG or CDT etc. hypothesize at a basic level, but if so there is no compelling reason to believe it must be associated with a non-zero net vacuum energy density.
You really should go study the article by A. Neumaier I linked to earlier. Let me know where you think there is a fatal flaw in it please.
SimonsCat
Registered Member
Granular... let's not talk about such things. I have no idea if the vacuum fluctuations are strong enough to create a granular spacetime; in fact, all evidence so far suggests such a granularity of spacetime isn't as significant as we once thought.
My main argument goes like this: Systems can not reach zero point energies and this cannot be explained by Van der Walls forces.
My main argument goes like this: Systems can not reach zero point energies and this cannot be explained by Van der Walls forces.
SimonsCat
Registered Member
The theories I mentioned don't rely on 'strength of vacuum fluctuations' creating granularity. The latter is a fundamental postulate in it's own right.
You are referring maybe to zero evidence for Lorentz invariance violations? You will find advocates of LQG etc. have shown that is not inconsistent with their better models.
Huh? Cannot reach ZPE? That is just a 'practical difficulty' of inability of excluding all genuinely thermal energy in a system. ZPE is always just there in matter systems.
His technical title may not be 'physicist', but I have yet to see any expert in QM/QFT ever get the better of him in any thread!
SimonsCat
Registered Member
I'd first question his knowledge, then I would question his ability to even talk about quantum mechanics and if all else fails, question his wisdom on such matters. Differentiate for yourself and learn the hard way because I won't be breaking down his work for anyone
(if you can even call it work), he has a lot of writing and very little mathematics to back his post up, which is one of the first things I look for. It helps build a sensible argument.
SimonsCat
Registered Member
SimonsCat
Registered Member
It's impossible to completely freeze a square measure of spacetime because of the residual motion of vacuum fluctuations. It corresponds to a type of Virial relationship where the motion of particles corresponds to the temperature of a system. Note this is only an analogy because vacuum fluctuations are of a different class to ordinary particles. One is off-shell and the other isn't, meaning that real matter is described by Hermitian matrices while vacuum fluctuations, are not.
https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/author/a-neumaier/I'd first question his knowledge, then I would question his ability to even talk about quantum mechanics and if all else fails, question his wisdom on such matters. Differentiate for yourself and learn the hard way because I won't be breaking down his work for anyone
Follow the links given there to his published and freely available online material. Best not to shoot from the lip before investigating a little.
Which is why I placed the term in quotes.
SimonsCat
Registered Member
No, I am talking about an experiment which measured how long it took light to reach us from a distant source. There was no granularity found. Doesn't mean vacuum fluctuations don't exist, it may be something simple like how matter or energy couples to those fields.