Sure, it is something that we have to deal with. But using the Dirac Sea as the zero point field is wrong. And it has been shown to be wrong by experiment. You can continue to claim you're right, but using the Dirac Sea as the cosmological constant has been called the worst prediction in physics.
Also see this quote from a Kip Thorne book. The summary is this: If you use the Dirac Sea as the ``zero point field'', then you get a prediction that is fantastically wrong. Myabe you'll listen to Kip Thorne if you won't listen to me, and then maybe you'll understand that I have spent more time studying these things than you have.
Then it seems that two sides to this. First, the Dirac Sea is a zero-point for negative electrons. If you deny this, then you are ascribing that particular sea with a real value, which it doesn't have. To solve Kips problem, you would most probably need to wipe out the Dirac Sea altogether... And quite personally, i am not willing to do that. And as for the ''worst predictions in physics,'' goes, i wouldn't have called it that. In fact, i would call it ''String Theory.''
Oh Lawrence Krause... I have that paper... quite good. He explained that the non-zero energy was in fact something they had to tolerate... In fact, he continues to explain that nothing brilliant arises from such a notion. Do you have a complete paper on his talk?
It is to my understanding we need non-zero values. Take the Higgs for example. It itself has a non zero value of 246 that permeates the spacetime, reaching all matter. When will it sink into our heads, that complaining about it, and saying that because things just don't work, doesn't necesserally mean they shouldn't Humans have a limited knowledge Ben. You treat the math as some holy relic, yet it should seem more and more pertinent that math with turn out to be our worst enemy. I accept there is no difference between the ZPF, Dirac Sea or the Cosmological Constant...Why>? - Simple. There is nothing different between them all, other than one isn't totally known what it should be (CC). But in theory, the CC should be a negative filling density in the vacuum which is Zero-Point. If no difference can be found, then the math is wrong, because, it is displaying, as you so elequently put it, 120 magnitudes of disorder. It's not the theory in question in my eyes. It's our understanding, which, let's face it Ben, is totally and utterly incomplete, especially when concerning these delicate area's... ... Now, i need to go. Won't be back tonight, until late tommorrow. Now... In the future... give me a bit more respect than what you have, because i know what i am talking about... i was aware of the 120 magntidues of disorder... I am sure i have spoke about it before here... But i am not going to disclude the evidence which is so very avid.
You should know that the Dirac Sea is an outdated concept, and it was abandoned by most theoretical physicists (except as a some-times useful tool for understanding relativistic quantum mechanics) in the 1950's, with the work of Feynamn, Schwinger and others. Basically, QED (which has been proven correct) wipes it out. Right. You are ignorant about string theory, and you should probably keep your own advice...
Actually I will give you as much respect as I give anyone who tells me that I don't knwo what I'm talking about.
Either way, hopefully people other than Reiku will understand that treating the Dirac Sea as a zero point field leads to a result which is 120 orders of magnitude wrong. Note that the diameter of a neutron is something like 10^-15 m, and the diameter of the observable is 10^27 m, a difference of ``only'' 32 orders of magnitude.
''Actually I will give you as much respect as I give anyone who tells me that I don't knwo what I'm talking about.'' Then back off a bit bub. I don't see you acting like this with anyone else... and this was even before i complained you were trolling my threads. Either way, the Dirac Sea is more than a useful tool, and as far as i understand it, not every physicist has abandoned it. Niether will I. It is a prediction of relativity and quantum mechanics that works more than very well. Krausse has this ability to make things worse than they look. For instance, he talks about the very small, but calculatable difference inside the atom when a positron-electron comes out of the sea. If is so very calculatable, then why don't we measure its affects? The answer must be a simple one. It doesn't affect it normally like we would expect it to. Let me give you an example of how we don't know everything, and how fresh new idea's might provide us with a better understanding of our MISCALCULATIONS. Remember that thread by Wanchung Hu? He proposed a source of frame-dragging inside the atom... which would account for i suppose, many unseen forces, even at the cosmological scale, using a principle called spinity. It's tiny differences like this that actually contribute to our miscalulations of the universe, and our utter ignorance of what the facts tells us. He has now got his paper under review, and I hope him all the best.
This is because no one else tells me that I don't know what I'm talking about. Despite my best efforts to convince you (with actual numbers and measurements and stuff the REAL PHYSICISTS are supposed to care about) that this is the wrong idea, you persist. Not only is it the wrong idea, it's the WORST idea in all of physics, as evidenced by the agreement with experiment. You cannot argue this point, because I have shown you that taking the Dirac Sea idea litterally leads to an error of 120ish orders of magnitude. No. Maybe on another forum run by crackpots. Well, it will be interesting to see how it plays out. Obviously the effect of gravity on the atom is too small to measure, so I don't know how one can compute gravitational corrections to the electron. And anyway the elctron is a wavefunction, and not a particle, so I it's not even obvious to me how one could begin to compute such things.
120 ORDERS of magnitude... so what? It's obvious we have got something wrong somewhere, and i don't think it has anything to do with concept... maybe mathematical concept... yes... but this is the way of the world. The Dirac Sea, much like ZPE and CC is all but one of the same thing under the same light, despite these mathematical errors. It's not a matter of convincing me Ben. I DON'T NEED TO BE CONVINCED. I know there is 122 magnitudes of error, but this error has sprung from deadly erroneous mathematics... wouldn't be the first time where conceptual physics and mathematical physics have took a tumble. Now... I will not debate this anymore. We are going about in circles.
Ben.. to acknowledge a problem isn't a problem at all, but to abide by it as a truth, is only enhancing the fear of it, which itself could be a lie of the calculations. So by accepting it and no more and no less, then one doesn't need to fear it, because then there needs to be a logical solution... Whatever that is. ... Let's just hope ben, that me and you are around for definative proof and solving of the ZP crisis... this much we can both hope for.
