Re: Reminding Son of what's already been explained
quote:You stated the cosmological constant has changed over time. I am saying this is wrong. I am not talking about the comparison between matter and energy.
So the cosmological was “constant” during inflation? Let me guess, you say yes. Hopeless….
quote:Seriously, why do you think this. I have given you the paper, explained the method twice, explained the theoretical background three times and you still keep repeating this. What problem do you have with the paper I linked to which calculates the correct answer? Why do you think this issue is unsolved? Can you provide a reason why you believe this is unsolved, without referencing almost fifty year old calculations.
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..
Re: Reminding Son of what's already been explained
quote:I am saying that the constant denoted by the symbol” “in Einstein's field equations for general relativity is constant. The field equations are:
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:So what I am saying is: That ￼, the object known as the cosmological constant, is a constant, that it does not vary over time and space. I do not know what you are refering to when you say "the cosmological", so I'm not claiming anything about whether it is constant or not. I am saying the cosmological constant, the ￼ term in the field equations, is a constant.
Only in GR. If the assumption: Cosmological constant = vacuum energy… After you equate the two there is no constant in the term constant.
quote:I’m saying that the vacuum catastrophe was a problem of old toy models and is not a problem of the actual standard model. The paper does not "point out it is imagination", it mathematically proves that the standard model has no vacuum catastrophe. Once again, can you actual say what is wrong with the paper.
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….
Re: Reminding Zaius of what's already been explained
quote:The term hopeless more appropriately applies to someone who objects to certain conclusions because they appeared in a technical paper (that they haven't read) while ignoring the fact that their own claims also appeared in technical papers (that are nearly a half century old and that in all likelihood they also haven't read).
I used “hopeless” out of frustration, stepping back I see that was wrong. Thank you for a concise evaluation.
Re: Reminding Zaius of what's already been explained
quote:You're welcome, but you didn't answer the implicit question. Why do you imbue papers on the subject from the 1970's with greater validity than more recent papers, especially having read none of them? Don't you have to read the papers before you can assess Son Goku's explanation that the work from 40 years ago used an approximate model that isn't capable of producing an accurate estimate of the cosmological constant, while the paper he cited uses a more accurate model that produces a result consistent with current estimates?
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:When I poke around on the web on this topic I see some articles that understand that the calculations from the 1970's used an approximate model, others that think the vacuum catastrophe is still a very real problem, and none that seem aware that the problem has been solved as Son Goku claims.
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.
quote:And yet even without taking into account any addition to the space time energy tensor at all, GR readily models gravity within the solar system. Surely something is completely wrong with your thinking. The only reason for adding vacuum energy is to explain the increasing rate of expansion of the universe. The constant plays no role even in explaining the rotation rates of galaxies. None at all.
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:What does not follow from your reasoning is that QFT is inaccurate in its description of physics.
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:And in fact, the issue is one on which we've repeatedly asked you to explain yourself. The correct calculation of zero point energy indeed does involve avoid a vacuum catastrophe and has been argued to be consistent with Lambda. So what is the issue?
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.”
quote:Totally BS. The value used in Einstein's equation is derived from observation, but the number calculated from particle physics is not. If the two values are consistent, then there is no issue.
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.
quote:Great. The point was to counter your complaint that the disjoint between vacuum energy and the cosmological constant meant that physics did not work in the two realms. And I did provide such an example.
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:That's fine. There is no problem finding pointers to the vacuum catastrophe. What I asked was whether you could find some commentary addressing proposed solutions. By the way, how about some bibliography on that cite of yours.
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:Well ￼ and ￼ do. I would have thought you'd love this, a perfect cancellation, which if it didn't occur would result in no galaxies forming. Also 1000 posts! Here for nearly 10 years and I've reached the milestone!! I assume Percy that my luxury mansion with framed portraits of major EVC luminaries (e.g. onifre, nwr, Chiroptera, Rahvin and others possibly even more handsome and cool) is in the mail?
It is not that they do… It is they must. Grasshopper….
quote:The reality is that scientific puzzles focus the attention of researchers, and this leads to new discoveries and new science that move science forward. This is what has happened and is happening after the discovery of an accelerating expansion of the universe and of the Higgs, and this potential discovery about black holes, if upheld, will do the same.
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.
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….