|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Black Holes Don't Exist | |||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3437 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: So the cosmological was constant during inflation? Let me guess, you say yes. Hopeless.
quote: Let me draw a very short parallel here. I guess you can say that black holes don’t exist then? You understand how ignorant that sounds in light of real observations. Well there is a paper written on it so let us jump on board. Who here for a single minute believes that black holes don’t exist because of a bad Standard Model prediction That is just funny. This is exactly what I am claiming here bad assumptions lead to more bad assumptions. Well Son says vacuum catastrophe does not exist, never has. Because a paper points out that it is all imagination. Hopeless..
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3437 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: That cosmological constant by Einstein was before inflation was proposed. At inflation the vacuum energy went to something like 10^90 in magnitude, settled out to almost zero, and remains at almost zero (or very low) in this epoch. Even the statement that it remains’ may not be the factual. That is what I am saying about being constant If you calculate a constant by quantum field theory you leave out gravity. This allows you to add any constant to the definition of energy density. That is your problem with with the QFT calculations
quote: Only in GR. If the assumption: Cosmological constant = vacuum energy After you equate the two there is no constant in the term constant.
quote: You wish to sell me a used car I am not buying it because you are leaving out so many facts that your statements mean nothing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3437 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: I used hopeless out of frustration, stepping back I see that was wrong. Thank you for a concise evaluation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3437 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: I have just dusted off a Scientific American from September 2004. It, more than any other article, at the time, helped me to form my opinions about the cosmological constant and the vacuum catastrophe. Something Son and I have talked about over a year ago, my recollection about this is sketchy so my apologies to Son if they don’t jive with his recollection. Calculations for virtual particles were first preformed in the 1930’s. Apparent problems at the time were not taken too seriously because it was assumed that cancelation of these virtual particle effects would prove a solution. In general, physics that do not involve gravity disregard the absolute energy of a system, only energy involving differences between states is considered. If a Constant is added to all the energy values, it can later cancel out of the calculations and be disregarded (please excuse the simple analysis). All this is saying is that calculations that do not consider gravity (non GR) do not consider curvature of space time by vacuum energy (additions to the stress energy tensor). So physics like QFT, that do not consider gravity, can cancel out aspects of vacuum energy, but they are not considering the vacuum energy contribution to space curvature. They can avoid the vacuum catastrophe all together but do not reflect space time accurately. We know that the critical density of the universe by the observation of a flat universe. The vacuum energy contribution to the equation of state is around 70%, that is current stress energy contribution of vacuum energy. So there must be a absolute contribution of energy from vacuum energy, it is not a differences of state situation. Now vacuum energy can be added to the stress energy tensor in Einsteins field equation (Son showed a tensor) but must be fine tuned by observations to reflect reality. You can not just add all the calculated vacuum contributions and come up with a answer this is the vacuum catastrophe. Nothing but fancier math has changed. There is still a rift in calculations between Standard Model and Relativity (although I acknowledge there is cross-work in this area). Fine tuning is still a problem though. I believe my last conversation with Son was on the topic of normalization in regards to QFT calculations. I am only a layperson trying to rake it all in all the info, this is apparently Son’s field. But I do not accept his supposed solutions to the vacuum catastrophe, as most true authorities in the field are in agreement.
quote: I agree with your last sentence, I have my own opinion about the BB not being able to reconcile all the problems, especially if they can not find Dark matter or Dark energy. It seems to me a better way is from a new cosmological model, say the 5d by Carmeli. It does not contain dark energy or dark matter.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3437 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: Nothing I have ever posted, in any forum has ever contradicted the complete conformation of GR (as if I could post such a thing). GR does model total energy and determines space time curvature. You observe a flat universe and show what the contribution of vacuum energy must be. I can not see how you extracted the preceding statement of yours from mine. At this moment we are not talking about other indications of a supposed dark matter exists.
quote: My objection again, is the scale of QFT. It is accurate in the micro there is trouble with the macro. I do not deny
quote: The observed can be determined, without cancelation of real vacuum energy, you have a vacuum catastrophe. Philosophically this is a fine-tuning from observations. One can claim that a student cheating on a test is just fine-tuning his answer to the question. Here is a example of a single virtual particle contributing to vacuum energy without said cancellations:
One expects roughly one particle in every volume equal to the Compton wavelength of the particle cubed, which gives a vacuum density of
For the highest reasonable elementary particle mass, the Planck mass of 20 micrograms, this density is more than . So there must be a suppression mechanism at work now that reduces the vacuum energy density by at least 120 orders of magnitude. Sorry i lost the link
[ Found it at a number of websites, see for example Vacuum Energy Density, or How Can Nothing Weigh Something? ] quote: The critical statement is If the two values are consistent, then there is no issue. The only separating the two are your assumptions on reconciliation. I gave it my best shot from my understanding now you can give me a good reason for that reconciliation. I might remind you at this time, that the subject of this thread contends against the formation of black holes from supernova. The only real understood mechanism for the creation of black holes. If you believe this proposition to be correct and black holes do not really exist, I suppose you can accept that the vacuum catastrophe is explainable also. that is just my opinion. Point one is not in the conversation at this time, point 2 will require a rehashing of my statements. With regard to this point, let me suggest that a better critique of the idea that the problem is unsolved is a modern rejection of the solution and not decade old papers written by 'true authorities' who hadn't not seen the solutions. An honest review is that there simply isn't enough stuff within easy google range to assess what physicists currently think about the issue. There is a lot, if you google hard enough, too much for me to handle (too deep in the minutia). I think you can say that it is a judgment call for what you can accept as real. Edited by Admin, : Provide missing link.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3437 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: If the physics is applied out of it’s scale, there are problems. The micro and the macro are still dominate domains of either QM or Relativity respectively.
quote: Son took care of that first part (no I still am not buying that used car). About there being a observable vacuum energy, well there is the rub. Things don’t just cancel nicely, do they?
quote: The universe was prepared beforehand in a special way, with a 55-order precision, such that today Λobs ∼ ρc . http://www.ecm.ub.es/IRGAC2006/talks/110706/Shapiro.pdf Carful, this is exactly what christians have been claiming for 2000 years. Although a deist, Einstein said God does not play dice with the universe. Albert Einstein - Wikiquote God can be identified in science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3437 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
I think we have combined a few different arguments here refuting CP violations are not part of the issues for back-energy calculation in star collapse or the vacuum catastrophe.
I am amazed that some of these calculations (like star collapse) can actually be attempted in the first place, others may require more computing power than is available or will ever be available. Ultimately, if you buy that black holes don’t exist from star collapse, that is the used Edsel at the back of the car lot Good luck with that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3437 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: It is not that they do It is they must. Grasshopper. It is a un-parsimonious cancelation. Congrats for the milestone.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3437 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: I am actually pleased that the universe exhibits a 55 order of magnitude preciseness. The only exactness a creator can impart. I can accept the evidence of a underlying symmetry but not necessarily the overlaying construct. To me the true reality must encompass the micro and macro universe (anything short of that is unsatisfying). By the way The very thing you disapprove of in me is the very thing that makes science great. Philosophical objection rejected all of the following bad theories/ideas before the formal proof came. phlogiston theory The Martian canals Luminiferous Aether Einstein’s static universe Fleischmann and Pons’s cold fusion http://www.toptenz.net/...es-that-turned-out-to-be-wrong.php Science must first find it’s limitation before it finds reality. Newton compared himself to a child standing on the shore of discovery with a vast ocean before him waiting to be discovered. Maybe science today lacks philosophical vigor. Because most of what I hear coming from macro science is that we are just about to confirm everything we believe about reality. So goes the utter self-regard in man. A tautology is not worth our support when it starts to explain nothing.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024