Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8936 total)
20 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, RAZD (3 members, 17 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,614 Year: 16,650/19,786 Month: 775/2,598 Week: 21/251 Day: 21/23 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Black Holes Don't Exist
zaius137
Member (Idle past 1663 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 98 of 174 (742206)
11-18-2014 2:00 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Son Goku
11-17-2014 3:28 PM


Re: Black Holed theory
quote:
I can understand you saying it is not proved. However, it is provable there are clear predictions by the standard model for what effects the Higg's boson should have. Surely that is provable and hence scientific? Note I am not saying it is proved, just that it is provable.

Your statement alone goes against the principle of theory refutation, That being: a theory can never be ‘proved’ only disproved. Also, a theory must be disprovable, unobservable particles and subsequent fields for those particle are unobservable in QFT.

By the way the point of this thread about black holes seems to imply that the major source of black holes in the universe is shown to be wrong by QM. That alone goes against observation in astronomy.

quote:
No. I'm saying QFT seems to give the correct gravitational effects at large scales. We currently don't know about small scales.

You must explain “correct”, least we quibble over quantum gravity.

Here isa short summation of the standard model issues:

Virtual particles that are never seen (only determined by their decay products) that makes it a theory that is not disprovable, undetected supper-symmetric particles, virtual particles difficult to quantify in general relativity and a calculated vacuum energy for virtual particles is 170 orders of magnitude greater than observed in astronomy. Prediction of the location in energy of the Higgs boson was broad and variable (no precise prediction here).

Look, I have no doubt that some sort of assumptions and mathematical patches could be presented in every case. The problem I encounter is that the basic assumption of particle/field for the Higgs is difficult to swallow (no observable particle and a scalar field).

The particle/field hypothesis is in affect a “straw man” being presented as evidence and backed by extensile reasoning in complex mathematics.

If particle/field hypothesis were correct, gravity (being the most relevant in the macro universe) would easily demonstrate a particle field relationship.

Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Son Goku, posted 11-17-2014 3:28 PM Son Goku has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by NoNukes, posted 11-18-2014 5:08 AM zaius137 has not yet responded
 Message 100 by NoNukes, posted 11-18-2014 5:16 AM zaius137 has not yet responded
 Message 101 by Percy, posted 11-18-2014 6:23 AM zaius137 has not yet responded
 Message 103 by Son Goku, posted 11-18-2014 6:45 AM zaius137 has responded

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 1663 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 106 of 174 (742254)
11-18-2014 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Son Goku
11-18-2014 6:45 AM


Re: Black Holed theory
quote:
Well isn't it clearly disprovable? (I only used provable because you used it) The standard model predicts clear effects for the Higgs boson related to decays in channels of other particles. If these aren't observed then it is disproved. Isn't that scientific?

The Higgs is never directly observed (it blinks from reality before it can be observed, at least that is the claim).

quote:
The standard model predicts clear effects for the Higgs boson related to decays in channels of other particles.

Does the tail wag the dog here?

The effect is observed before the cause, the cause can not be disproved (it is a assumption of particle/field). That my friend is religion not science, if you want to claim faith in the cause, that is your prerogative (and burden).

quote:
Correct = What is observed in experiments.

I would add what is observed in reality, not what we interpret reality to be.

quote:
The standard model does not involve virtual particles. No quantum field theory does. Virtual particles are not a component of quantum field theory, they are a pedagogical device used to describe quantum field theory in popular or undergraduate textbooks.
However they are not really a part of the theory. Quantum field theory does not predict the existence of or involve virtual particles. I can give a few references for this if you want.

Where is QFT without virtual particles (or whatever you want to call them)? Here is a classic “straw man”. You have me holding my breath for the details.

By the way the Higgs seems to be a virtual particle or (too short lived to be seen, if you like). So in a sense a real particle is predicted by QFT and a virtual particle shows up in experiment.

quote:
The standard model does not involve super-symmetry. I mean, literally, the standard model is not super-symmetric. This makes me think you don't really know what the standard model is. In fact recent observations, due to not observing super-symmetric partners, have disproved super-symmetry and upheld the standard model.

I am not defending supper-symmetry or the propping up of the Standard model.. Please give me your take on the following, no quantum double-talk is acceptable.

The first realistic supersymmetric version of the Standard Model was proposed in 1981 by Howard Georgi and Savas Dimopoulos and is called the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model or MSSM for short. It was proposed to solve the hierarchy problem and predicts superpartners with masses between 100 GeV and 1 TeV.
As of September 2011, no meaningful signs of the superpartners have been observed.[17][18] The Large Hadron Collider at CERN is producing the world's highest energy collisions and offers the best chance at discovering superparticles for the foreseeable future.
After the discovery of the Higgs particle in 2012, it was expected that supersymmetric particles would be found at CERN, but there has been still no evidence of them. The LHCb and CMS experiments at the LHC made the first definitive observation of a Strange B meson decaying into two muons, confirming a standard model prediction, but a blow for those hoping for signs of supersymmetry.[19] Neil Turok at Perimeter Institute concedes that theorists are disheartened at that situation, and that they are at a crossroad in theoretical (and particle) physics, calling it a deep crisis. He described the LHC results as "simple, yet extremely puzzling" and said "we have to get people to try to find the new principles that will explain the simplicity".[20] (wiki)

quote:
I gave you a paper in a previous thread that demonstrated this is no longer the case, i.e. that 170 orders of magnitude error is from the 1970s when QFT calculations could not be done as accurately.

Please in your own words…. summarize this. So I do not have to endure the agony again.

quote:
The Higgs mass is an input parameter, same as the electron mass. Now, I too would want a deeper theory to explain why this mass, just as the standard model doesn't explain "why this charge for the electron". However this isn't an unusual problem, it's just that the standard model has input parameters like all other physical theories.

Thank you for a simple honest answer about the input parameter. There is yet to be definitive proof the particle found was a Higgs. The Higgs mechanism is still unproved, only theoretical constructs exist. Further, you know my objections to the particle/field hypothesis. I still claim it is not falsifiable, thus not formal science.

Personally, I would never include the mass of a electron in the same sentence as Higgs mass (it seems to add excessive validity to the Higgs).

quote:
The fourth problem is a problem, but it is one every theory of physics has, the need for input parameters.

Again: What did Archimedes say? Give me a lever long enough and a place to put it, so I may move the world. QFT says, give me enough free parameters and fields to put them in and I will describe the universe.

quote:
This is nonsense. For an idea to be correct it doesn't have to apply to everything.

No, just reality…


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Son Goku, posted 11-18-2014 6:45 AM Son Goku has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Son Goku, posted 11-18-2014 2:23 PM zaius137 has responded

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 1663 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 107 of 174 (742257)
11-18-2014 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by NoNukes
11-18-2014 8:31 AM


Re: Black Holed theory
quote:
Zaius137 comment implies that a theory must be 'unprovable' in some new realm. That's not necessarily true.

Now, maybe I was not clear (that never happens just for the record).

A theory must be falsifiable… or else it is a tautology or classified in religious terms.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by NoNukes, posted 11-18-2014 8:31 AM NoNukes has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Son Goku, posted 11-18-2014 2:33 PM zaius137 has not yet responded

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 1663 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 110 of 174 (742334)
11-19-2014 1:49 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Son Goku
11-18-2014 2:23 PM


Re: Black Holed theory
quote:
What I think is that current observations are consistent with a Higgs boson. The Higgs mechanism has survived the first round of observations. It has to survive more, as most physicists will tell you. Again I don't see what is religious about this.

The observation that would best aid the verification of the Higgs mechanism would be verification particle/field. I suppose the first round of observations you are referring to is the W scattering process statistics. Why are these observations always so rare, in this case I believe it was 36 events in trillions of collisions, I would like to see the statistical significance of 36 events out of trillions of observations. I bet the random events are of better statistical significance.

quote:
They have similar names in the English language, but they are vastly different theories with completely different particle species and decay rates.

No comment.

quote:
Well since I have explained in detail to you before, I will summarise briefly. When you calculate the vacuum energy in the standard model you get the observed value for the cosmological constant. It's a toy model that gives a value 170 orders of magnitude off, not the standard model itself. (The calculation is done using steepest-descent methods on the Path Integral.)

So the magnitude still remains off by an order of 170… That is crystal clear.

quote:
No actually, I don't. You've never stated them, just that you object. We've seen field states decay into particles, fields coalesce into a particle and fields produce particles. What part of the concept is untested or not falsifiable to you?

Your reasoning is completely circular, particle /field is right so that is what we observe.

quote:
Well all theories of physics have free parameters. Although it would be better not to, I still don't see what is "incorrect" about them. Classical physics also has free parameters, Newtonian gravity has free parameters. It isn't just QFT that does this, so I don't see why you are leveling it against it in particular.

It is not an objection to free parameters, it is a objection to the quality and quantity of them in QFT.

quote:
To be honest, I think you don't have a clue what you are actually disagreeing with. You purposefully say leading things with no content like:
It seems all is not well in the Higgs camp....
without ever backing them up. This nonsense about the Standard Model not being falsifiable is the latest in a line of guff where you simply use your opponents previous response to generate the next vague leading sarcastic remark.

This is not a scientific peer review, it is a discussion forum that permits different points of view. It is up to the participant to accept or object.

“you simply use your opponents previous response to generate the next vague leading sarcastic remark” That is debate with panache my friend.

Son,

I would like to review a few nuggets of your posts in this thread,

quote:
*Yes, distorting spacetime actually changes the meaning of "empty" or "devoid of mass-energy". A quantum field derives its definition of empty/vacuum/void from the spacetime around it. So initially the quantum field is in some state and it "queries" the spacetime as to the physical content of its state. The spacetime "returns" the result "that's a vacuum state". However if the spacetime changes it might return "That's a state of ten particles”.

Almost like a computational algorithm. It is kind of like a conversation between two separate individuals, not at all like the quantum universe you wish to convey by implication. So the quantum field “quarries” space-time, clearly a entity of GR. This scenario is very bizarre since there is a great controversy over what empty space really is. No criticism here, everyone is entitled to their own wild conjecture, even me.

quote:
There is something "behind" matter in modern physics and that is the quantum fields. A particle itself is nothing more than a localised excitation of these fields. The universe is indeed "full" of these fields and they do indeed span the space between stars, with the stars themselves being typically low energy excitations of these fields, like most conventional matter.

I believe it is God… more scientific than the Higgs.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Son Goku, posted 11-18-2014 2:23 PM Son Goku has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by vimesey, posted 11-19-2014 2:21 AM zaius137 has not yet responded
 Message 112 by Son Goku, posted 11-19-2014 2:46 AM zaius137 has responded
 Message 113 by Son Goku, posted 11-19-2014 3:21 AM zaius137 has responded
 Message 114 by Percy, posted 11-19-2014 8:07 AM zaius137 has responded
 Message 115 by Theodoric, posted 11-19-2014 8:56 AM zaius137 has responded

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 1663 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 116 of 174 (742387)
11-19-2014 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Son Goku
11-19-2014 2:46 AM


Re: Black Holed theory
You would think that I am the one posing a formal objection to a disagreement of predicted vacuum energy to apparent vacuum energy.

Formally it is known as the “vacuum catastrophe”. I asked Son to summarize all the minutia in formal objections, he did not, I still pose that offer.

quote:
I gave you two papers and wrote three long posts explaining the standard model calculation.
This year I have explained where the old "170 orders of magnitude" quote came from to help you understand.

No I am not reading all the papers he has cited (even if I had all the access I needed), as far as I know from the summations I have read, the problem remains unanswered except by “superfluous ontological apparatus”.

About the Higgs:

quote:
They are not. That's what all the statistical analysis was for last year. Several papers have been published analyzing the data statistically and shown that it is significant. Unless you can point out something incorrect in these forty or so papers, then for what reason do you think/bet random events are more statistically significant.

This is the true “straw man” I have seen you use time and time again. Here he is! now you pick him apart. First problem is getting to a true particle/field relationship, The Higgs is never seen as a particle… FACT. The excuse is that it appears too fast to observe…. The particle/field provides a framework in QFT to build a mathematical construct around the same. It is in all definition a speculation… Unprovable by definition.

In my opinion, the critics of the discovery of the Higgs particle will eventually win the day.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Son Goku, posted 11-19-2014 2:46 AM Son Goku has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Son Goku, posted 11-19-2014 2:18 PM zaius137 has not yet responded
 Message 122 by Percy, posted 11-19-2014 2:20 PM zaius137 has responded

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 1663 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 117 of 174 (742389)
11-19-2014 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Percy
11-19-2014 8:07 AM


No black holes in QFT
quote:
What Son Goku said *was* pretty clear - read it again. He said that the application of a decades old simplified model (rather than the actual standard model) is what gave a result 170 orders of magnitude off.

What Son said was “read the paper”. Here is a brief summery of the problem from (wiki). The light it sheds on the issues is very supportive of QFT, only when it states that QFT assumptions must be limited to a particular scale. Son has implied scale does not matter.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Percy, posted 11-19-2014 8:07 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 1663 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 118 of 174 (742391)
11-19-2014 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Theodoric
11-19-2014 8:56 AM


Re: Black Holed theory
Great post... Cheers!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Theodoric, posted 11-19-2014 8:56 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 1663 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 119 of 174 (742392)
11-19-2014 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Son Goku
11-19-2014 3:21 AM


QFT does not explain BH, only BS.
quote:
They are not. That's what all the statistical analysis was for last year. Several papers have been published analyzing the data statistically and shown that it is significant. Unless you can point out something incorrect in these forty or so papers, then for what reason do you think/bet random events are more statistically significant.

Here is just some quotations from your citations… very convincing.

Higgs boson to down-type fermions, with an observed significance of 3.8 standard deviations, when 4.4 are expected.

Here, we report the combination of these two channels, which results in strong evidence for the direct coupling of the 125 GeV Higgs boson to down-type fermions, with an observed significance of 3.8 standard deviations, when 4.4 are expected.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Son Goku, posted 11-19-2014 3:21 AM Son Goku has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Son Goku, posted 11-19-2014 1:59 PM zaius137 has responded
 Message 123 by NoNukes, posted 11-19-2014 2:36 PM zaius137 has not yet responded
 Message 124 by Percy, posted 11-19-2014 2:43 PM zaius137 has not yet responded

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 1663 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 127 of 174 (742431)
11-20-2014 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by Son Goku
11-19-2014 3:17 PM


Re: Reminding Zaius of what's already been explained
Now was that so hard… I knew you could do it.

quote:
From cosmological observations it appears that the Vacuum Energy is about one joule per cubic kilometer. That is, every cubic kilometer of empty space contains about a joule, even when no matter is present.

What Son has just presented will not be a point of contention with me (even though I have some questions). What he has failed to mention is that the field (cosmological constant) is evolving with time in accordance with the BB history. You can calculate a cosmological constant for any epoch, but nothing the Standard model has presented actually demonstrates a realistic modeling for “dark energy” and its variance (also no WIMPS found for dark matter). Why does the dark energy change over time?

I am still getting an additional reply ready… Very exciting.

Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.

Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Son Goku, posted 11-19-2014 3:17 PM Son Goku has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Son Goku, posted 11-20-2014 6:58 AM zaius137 has responded
 Message 137 by Son Goku, posted 11-20-2014 1:50 PM zaius137 has responded

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 1663 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 128 of 174 (742432)
11-20-2014 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Son Goku
11-19-2014 1:59 PM


Re: QFT does not explain BH, only BS.
quote:
Well there you go folks. A sarcastic one-liner yet again. "Very convincing, lol", with no comment on why it is not convincing or in fact any content at all.

I am sarcastic, provoking isn’t it….

Well I guess if the expectation is not met by results, QFT can just adjust a parameter… no big deal. Your a smart participant and this is your field, explain why the expectation might not be met and what parameter might need tweaking. Keep it simple because you are talking to a “zero spinning Bozo living in a field”.

Just a quick side point…

CERN is a statistical engine, no sharp peaks for particles is necessary. What you can not obtain with a million collisions you can obtain with ten trillion collisions. I do have a rudimentary understanding of statistical analysis as used in computational programing (a past life). Statistics can smear results that are not separated by significant deviations (that may be an objective in some models). That is just the nature of the beast, although it also depends on the statistical modeling. This might be an explanation why Fermilab was not particularly interested in the 125GeV mass. The claim was at the time that there “was a lot going on there”. I remember the reports well as I followed all the blogs with great interest. Just be prepared that one day this entire find might come to nought.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Son Goku, posted 11-19-2014 1:59 PM Son Goku has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Son Goku, posted 11-20-2014 7:07 AM zaius137 has not yet responded

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 1663 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 129 of 174 (742434)
11-20-2014 3:23 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Percy
11-19-2014 2:20 PM


quote:
You're not qualified to pose a "formal objection", but who else besides you is basing their objection on a decades old rough approximation of the standard model?

You need to read more my friend. It is somewhat less than a TOE.

quote:
First, notice that the discrepancy is given as 107 orders of magnitude, not 170. I do not myself know which figure is correct, but if you're going to claim 170 and then cite a Wikipedia article that claims 107, you might want to explain the difference.
Second, notice where it says "a naive application of quantum field theory". Son Goku will have to confirm, but this "naive application" may be what he means when he refers to a toy model from the 1970’s.

I take the “naive” application to mean an application of QFT to the large scale universe and gravity. Stars are not excitations of universal fields, as Son would have it. Imagine what a proof for star formation or black hole formation would look like from the standard model (QFT).

You started this thread on a outrageous view developed from the standard model. Does anyone believe black holes don’t exist? If they do not come about in stars, how could there be so many in the universe?

quote:
Son Goku addressed this already in Message 108, explaining that detection of the Higgs is following the same familiar track of progress as other particles:

The first assumption of the particle/field principle is that the decays actually reflect a particle (this my be beyond scientific proof). Maybe the decay products that are observed are not indicative of a particle at all. Furthermore, these decays are assumed to be a zero spin boson in the case of a Higgs, that assumption is yet to be proved first, then the Higgs needs to be shown to impart mass to gage bosons. There is no other particle that acts like a Higgs is supposed to act, this is new ground. Yet the particle detected is still just another decay at this point, some research says this is a Higgs by statistical conformation, skeptics maintain the Higgs could still be a doublet impostor.

If it is a Higgs, what does it answer, the mass it does explain seems arbitrary to the particle. How many other mechanisms are required to explain the occurrence of mass of normal matter and black hole mass? The Higgs does not answer the preceding questions at all.

You might say, well you believe in black holes right, they can not be seen directly. This may be true, but black holes do not just blink into and out of existence (too fast to observe) that to me is nonsense.

quote:
We know what your opinion is. What we're trying to understand is whether your opinion is based upon anything factual.

To my frustration we have not reached the meat of this discussion… Yet.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Percy, posted 11-19-2014 2:20 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Percy, posted 11-20-2014 7:16 AM zaius137 has not yet responded

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 1663 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 133 of 174 (742475)
11-20-2014 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Son Goku
11-20-2014 6:58 AM


Re: Reminding Zaius of what's already been explained
quote:
It isn't, the cosmological constant is constant in time and space according to observations, hence the reason it is called a constant.

Not that simple…

Originally the cosmological constant was a contribution of space itself to pose a balance in the universe. When the constant was assumed to be a contribution of energy then things changed. If the volume of the universe is increasing, dark energy must also increase. Since the evolution of the universe is more complex, a deceleration then a acceleration, the energy contribution has changed from the past epoch to the present one, that from vacuum energy.

"No technique has ever been able to probe this ancient era before," said BOSS principal investigator David Schlegel of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. "Back then, the expansion of the universe was slowing down; today, it's speeding up. How dark energy caused the transition from deceleration to acceleration is one of the most challenging questions in cosmology."

http://mdashf.org/...over-time-say-the-last-10-billion-years


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Son Goku, posted 11-20-2014 6:58 AM Son Goku has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Son Goku, posted 11-20-2014 1:06 PM zaius137 has responded

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 1663 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 135 of 174 (742477)
11-20-2014 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Son Goku
11-20-2014 1:06 PM


Re: Reminding Son of what's already been explained
You just missed the main point, the evolution of the balance between vacuum energy and matter has changed over time (main point). Either matter is decreasing or vacuum energy is increasing. I would go with the latter.

You only imply a local constant… not the observed one.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Son Goku, posted 11-20-2014 1:06 PM Son Goku has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Son Goku, posted 11-20-2014 1:45 PM zaius137 has responded

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 1663 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 138 of 174 (742486)
11-20-2014 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Son Goku
11-20-2014 1:45 PM


Re: Reminding Son of what's already been explained
quote:
If I have a container with 8 liters of water and a volume of 1 cubic meter and then it increases to 2 cubic meters with 16 liters of water, the amount of water has changed but the density has not.
The Cosmological constant is a density. What the Standard model predicts is an energy density. One that is constant according to observations and according to the Standard Model.

You really don’t get it. Forget the changing volume. It is the density between matter and energy which has changed. If you calculated the vacuum energy in the past, then calculated it now, it’s density is “different”. Forget the volume for now, think balance of state.

How dark energy caused the transition from deceleration to acceleration is one of the most challenging questions in cosmology."

http://mdashf.org/...over-time-say-the-last-10-billion-years


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Son Goku, posted 11-20-2014 1:45 PM Son Goku has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Son Goku, posted 11-20-2014 2:43 PM zaius137 has responded

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 1663 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 139 of 174 (742489)
11-20-2014 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Son Goku
11-20-2014 1:50 PM


Re: Reminding Son of what's already been explained
What was wrong with the explanation from 2012 that it required a repeat? Obviously you knew I could do it, since I'd done it before.

Son, the answer for calculating energy density, that is observed today, from quantum background still does not work. Just the infinities alone in perturbation theory cause issues. No one, except a very few individuals expect that vacuum energy can be reconciled to 107 orders of magnitude.

Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Son Goku, posted 11-20-2014 1:50 PM Son Goku has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019