Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #522286 > unrolled thread

What exactly is the vacuum catastrophe and what effects does this have upon our understanding of the universe?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  What exactly is the vacuum catastrophe and what effects does this have upon our understanding of the universe? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 16:02 -0500
    Re: What exactly is the vacuum catastrophe and what effects does this have upon our understanding of the universe? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-20 21:37 +0000
    Re: What exactly is the vacuum catastrophe and what effects does this have upon our understanding of the universe? Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-09-21 02:09 +0000
      Re: What exactly is the vacuum catastrophe and what effects does this have upon our understanding of the universe? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 19:25 -0700
      Re: What exactly is the vacuum catastrophe and what effects does this have upon our understanding of the universe? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-21 07:17 +0200
        Re: What exactly is the vacuum catastrophe and what effects does this have upon our understanding of the universe? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-21 07:50 +0200
          Re: What exactly is the vacuum catastrophe and what effects does this have upon our understanding of the universe? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-21 07:59 +0200
            Re: What exactly is the vacuum catastrophe and what effects does this have upon our understanding of the universe? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-09-21 12:19 -0700
    Re: What exactly is the vacuum catastrophe and what effects does this have upon our understanding of the universe? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2015-09-21 12:39 -0700
    Re: What exactly is the vacuum catastrophe and what effects does this have upon our understanding of the universe? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-09-21 22:51 -0400
      Re: What exactly is the vacuum catastrophe and what effects does this have upon our understanding of the universe? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-09-21 20:03 -0700
        Re: What exactly is the vacuum catastrophe and what effects does this have upon our understanding of the universe? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-10-01 18:43 -0400
          Re: What exactly is the vacuum catastrophe and what effects does this have upon our understanding of the universe? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-10-01 17:35 -0700
            Re: What exactly is the vacuum catastrophe and what effects does this have upon our understanding of the universe? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 07:07 -0500
            Re: What exactly is the vacuum catastrophe and what effects does this have upon our understanding of the universe? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-10-02 13:57 -0400
    Re: What exactly is the vacuum catastrophe and what effects does this have upon our understanding of the universe? gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-10-01 20:31 -0500
      there is no absolute (pascalian vacuum ... I'm sure that Pascal figured that out, later noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 11:32 -0700

#522286 — What exactly is the vacuum catastrophe and what effects does this have upon our understanding of the universe?

What exactly is the vacuum catastrophe and what effects does this have 
upon our understanding of the universe?
> http://www.askamathematician.com/2011/06/q-what-exactly-is-the-vacuum-catastrophe-and-what-effects-does-this-have-upon-our-understanding-of-the-universe/

> Physicist: The vacuum catastrophe is sometimes cited as the biggest
> disagreement between theory and experiment ever.  They disagree by a
> factor of at least 10^107.
>
> According to quantum field theory the energy of empty space can’t
> quite be zero.  In fact, QFT gives us an exact value for how much
> energy empty space should have.  Although we can never access that
> energy, it does have a gravitational effect.
>
> One of the (many) things the Voyager probes did was allow us to
> estimate how strong those gravitational effects are.  Unfortunately,
> they determined that the theoretical predictions are way, way, way
> off (too high).
>
> There’s a short paper here aimed at the undergraduate physics crowd
> that covers this better than I do.
>
> It’s a catastrophe because QFT is otherwise a stunningly accurate
> theory (the most accurate ever, by far).  But, at the end of the day,
> you have to fall back on observation, so something about our favorite
> theory is wrong.
>
> One result of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is that it’s
> impossible for a system to be in a zero-energy state.  In a nutshell:
> if a particle definitely has zero energy, then it’s definitely not
> moving and its momentum is zero.  However, to get that level of
> certainty you need the position to be completely uncertain and (for
> various reasons) that’s untenable.  You can run through this
> mathematically, and you find that systems always have just a tiny bit
> more than zero energy, and that that energy is proportional to
> \frac{\omega}{2}, where \omega is the frequency of the
> particle/system in question.  That little bit of energy is called the
> “ground state energy” or just “ground energy”.
>
> The same thing applies to all particle fields, but rather than
> generalize, I’ll just talk about light: the electromagnetic (EM)
> field.  It turns out that every frequency of the EM field, at every
> point in space, is its own tiny system (not at all obvious; that
> falls out of the math).  As a result, instead of a tiny ground state
> energy for a single system, in any given region of space you have
> lots of systems.  These form the ground state energy density, which
> is more commonly known as the “zero point energy”.


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#522313

Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
> What exactly is the vacuum catastrophe

It is when the carpet is dirty, guests are due, and the vacuum won't work.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#522411

On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 16:02:49 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:

> What exactly is the vacuum catastrophe
>

If you are going to provide links, then at least provide links
that are at an appropriate level.  This is not an elementary
school forum.

The more common term is zero-point energy:

http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#522412

There are other, smaller emr radiations
as well as other, smaller atoms of
matter.
The Universe is fractal in nature, based
on Galaxy/atom iterations.

So, yeah, your understanding is
MANY bricks short of a full load.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#522431

Dne 21/09/2015 v 04:09 Fabian Russell napsal(a):
> On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 16:02:49 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:
> 

> If you are going to provide links, then at least provide links
> that are at an appropriate level.  This is not an elementary
> school forum.
> 

Hm, rather once it was not.

But these days,
knowledge I gain even in the elementary school
is challenging for some posters.

They choke themselves on high school physics or math,
and whatever above that is like a garlic to vampires for them.

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#522434

Dne 21/09/2015 v 07:17 Poutnik napsal(a):
> Dne 21/09/2015 v 04:09 Fabian Russell napsal(a):
>> On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 16:02:49 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>
> 
>> If you are going to provide links, then at least provide links
>> that are at an appropriate level.  This is not an elementary
>> school forum.
>>
> 
> Hm, rather once it was not.
> 
> But these days,
> knowledge I gain even in the elementary school
> is challenging for some posters.
> 
> They choke themselves on high school physics or math,
> and whatever above that is like a garlic to vampires for them.
> 
OTOH, I doubt a vacuum energy is an elementary school topic :-)

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#522435

Dne 21/09/2015 v 07:50 Poutnik napsal(a):
> Dne 21/09/2015 v 07:17 Poutnik napsal(a):
>> Dne 21/09/2015 v 04:09 Fabian Russell napsal(a):

>>> If you are going to provide links, then at least provide links
>>> that are at an appropriate level.  This is not an elementary
>>> school forum.
>>>
>>
> OTOH, I doubt a vacuum energy is an elementary school topic :-)
> 
Definitely not at level of referenced Am. J. Phys. article.

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#522532

On Sunday, September 20, 2015 at 10:59:51 PM UTC-7, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 21/09/2015 v 07:50 Poutnik napsal(a):
> > Dne 21/09/2015 v 07:17 Poutnik napsal(a):
> >> Dne 21/09/2015 v 04:09 Fabian Russell napsal(a):
> 
> >>> If you are going to provide links, then at least provide links
> >>> that are at an appropriate level.  This is not an elementary
> >>> school forum.
> >>>
> >>
> > OTOH, I doubt a vacuum energy is an elementary school topic :-)
> > 
> Definitely not at level of referenced Am. J. Phys. article.
> 
> -- 
> Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
> 
> Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

Arrogant is not the right word to use for the 4 low wits in this group.They know no answers so they bad mouth nice posters that can think.They only want to destroy this group like they have destroyed Alt.Astronomy.     Vacuum energy is the new field of science.It will link QM with SR and GR. Space is indeed a frontier for the future thinkers  TreBert PS Einstein was big on space fabric

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#522539

On Sunday, September 20, 2015 at 2:02:56 PM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote:
> What exactly is the vacuum catastrophe and what effects does this have 
> upon our understanding of the universe?
> > http://www.askamathematician.com/2011/06/q-what-exactly-is-the-vacuum-catastrophe-and-what-effects-does-this-have-upon-our-understanding-of-the-universe/
> 
> > Physicist: The vacuum catastrophe is sometimes cited as the biggest
> > disagreement between theory and experiment ever.  They disagree by a
> > factor of at least 10^107.
> >
> > According to quantum field theory the energy of empty space can't
> > quite be zero.  In fact, QFT gives us an exact value for how much
> > energy empty space should have.  Although we can never access that
> > energy, it does have a gravitational effect.
> >
> > One of the (many) things the Voyager probes did was allow us to
> > estimate how strong those gravitational effects are.  Unfortunately,
> > they determined that the theoretical predictions are way, way, way
> > off (too high).
> >
> > There's a short paper here aimed at the undergraduate physics crowd
> > that covers this better than I do.
> >
> > It's a catastrophe because QFT is otherwise a stunningly accurate
> > theory (the most accurate ever, by far).  But, at the end of the day,
> > you have to fall back on observation, so something about our favorite
> > theory is wrong.
> >
> > One result of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is that it's
> > impossible for a system to be in a zero-energy state.  In a nutshell:
> > if a particle definitely has zero energy, then it's definitely not
> > moving and its momentum is zero.  However, to get that level of
> > certainty you need the position to be completely uncertain and (for
> > various reasons) that's untenable.  You can run through this
> > mathematically, and you find that systems always have just a tiny bit
> > more than zero energy, and that that energy is proportional to
> > \frac{\omega}{2}, where \omega is the frequency of the
> > particle/system in question.  That little bit of energy is called the
> > "ground state energy" or just "ground energy".
> >
> > The same thing applies to all particle fields, but rather than
> > generalize, I'll just talk about light: the electromagnetic (EM)
> > field.  It turns out that every frequency of the EM field, at every
> > point in space, is its own tiny system (not at all obvious; that
> > falls out of the math).  As a result, instead of a tiny ground state
> > energy for a single system, in any given region of space you have
> > lots of systems.  These form the ground state energy density, which
> > is more commonly known as the "zero point energy".


Well then I guess it's back to the drawing board.

Double-A

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#522617

On 20/09/2015 5:02 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> What exactly is the vacuum catastrophe and what effects does this have
> upon our understanding of the universe?
>> http://www.askamathematician.com/2011/06/q-what-exactly-is-the-vacuum-catastrophe-and-what-effects-does-this-have-upon-our-understanding-of-the-universe/
>>
>
>> Physicist: The vacuum catastrophe is sometimes cited as the biggest
>> disagreement between theory and experiment ever.  They disagree by a
>> factor of at least 10^107.

This a case of physicists not being able to see the trees because of the 
forest. The reason that Dark Energy doesn't equal the ZPE of space is 
because the entire ZPE isn't accessible to Dark Energy.

	Yousuf Khan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#522619

Yousef
Please tell us more about ZPE and DE.
How do you know this? Explain, please.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#524157

On 21/09/2015 11:03 PM, john wrote:
> Yousef
> Please tell us more about ZPE and DE.
> How do you know this? Explain, please.

The Zero Point Energy (ZPE), aka Vacuum Energy, are just the highest 
potential energy available from the vacuum. The estimated size of the 
ZPE is 10^113 J/m^3. The Big Bang happened as a result of a *tiny* 
fluctuation in the ZPE. The magnitude of the energy of the Big Bang is 
only 2x10^69 J, which means that within a cubic meter of empty space, 
you still have enough energy left over to create 5x10^43 other Big 
Bangs! That's 50 million, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, 
trillion, trillion Big Bangs worth! If even the most massive explosion 
we know of, the explosion that created the universe is so puny compared 
to the ZPE, then why should we expected the gentle little push that we 
call Dark Energy to be anywhere near the size of the ZPE?

In fact, the size of Dark Energy is estimated to be 10^-9 J/m^3, which 
means that it's 122 orders of magnitude smaller than the ZPE. The ZPE is 
big, and it contains more energy that we ever need, and more energy than 
even an entire universe ever needs.

	Yousuf Khan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#524178

I think DE is neutrinos

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#524222

On 10/1/2015 7:35 PM, john wrote:
> I think DE is neutrinos
>

They behave exactly the wrong way, John.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#524255

On 01/10/2015 8:35 PM, john wrote:
> I think DE is neutrinos

I think DE is a large scale effect of what we call the Casimir Effect, 
which shows what a differential in vacuum energy pressures between the 
inside and outside of a pair of plates can cause. Coincidently, I think 
DM is also coming from the same source, the Casimir Effect, but only 
working in the opposite way to DE. Depending on the presence of large 
scale objects, like galaxies and clusters, we see the same effect either 
being attractive and making gravity stronger, or repulsive and working 
against gravity.

Now as for your theory of neutrinos, as a matter of fact, before the 
discovery of DE, scientists who were studying the spectrum of the cosmic 
microwave background, with the COBE satellite, which was launched before 
DE was discovered, thought that the part of the spectrum that we now 
associate with DE might have been associated with creating neutrinos. 
And not just any neutrinos, but a special type of them called sterile 
neutrinos. That was the state of the theory prior to the 1998, and how 
the world completely changed after 1998.

	Yousuf Khan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#524183

On 9/20/2015 4:02 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> What exactly is the vacuum catastrophe and what effects does this have
> upon our understanding of the universe?
>> http://www.askamathematician.com/2011/06/q-what-exactly-is-the-vacuum-catastrophe-and-what-effects-does-this-have-upon-our-understanding-of-the-universe/
>>
>
>> Physicist: The vacuum catastrophe is sometimes cited as the biggest
>> disagreement between theory and experiment ever.  They disagree by a
>> factor of at least 10^107.

show the numbers please.


>>
>> According to quantum field theory the energy of empty space can’t
>> quite be zero.  In fact, QFT gives us an exact value for how much
>> energy empty space should have.  Although we can never access that
>> energy, it does have a gravitational effect.

and it is a THEORY.


>> One of the (many) things the Voyager probes did was allow us to
>> estimate how strong those gravitational effects are.  Unfortunately,
>> they determined that the theoretical predictions are way, way, way
>> off (too high).

numbers please.


>>
>> There’s a short paper here aimed at the undergraduate physics crowd
>> that covers this better than I do.
>>
>> It’s a catastrophe because QFT is otherwise a stunningly accurate
>> theory (the most accurate ever, by far).

how accurate ?


>> But, at the end of the day,
>> you have to fall back on observation, so something about our favorite
>> theory is wrong.

so your theory disagrees with observation.


>>
>> One result of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is that it’s
>> impossible for a system to be in a zero-energy state.

wrong, it does not say that, nor imply your stuff.


introduced first in 1927, by the German physicist Werner Heisenberg, it 
states that the more precisely the position of some particle is 
determined, the less precisely its momentum can be known, and vice 
versa.[1] The formal inequality relating the standard deviation of 
position σx and the standard deviation of momentum σp was derived by 
Earle Hesse Kennard[2] later that year and by Hermann Weyl[3] in 1928:

>> In a nutshell:
>> if a particle definitely has zero energy, then it’s definitely not
>> moving and its momentum is zero.  However, to get that level of
>> certainty you need the position to be completely uncertain and (for
>> various reasons) that’s untenable.

wrong.  it is a upper limit.


<Snip crap>


  “zero point energy”.

go sit in the corner with Puff + hooff.

http://www.ldolphin.org/zpe.html
>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#524261 — there is no absolute (pascalian vacuum ... I'm sure that Pascal figured that out, later

it's just the continuation of EinsteinmaniA,
the ideal that gravity is the sole, long-range force (or,
the ideal that gravity is not a secondary aspect
of plasma physics a l'Alfven et al

>   "zero point energy".
> 
> go sit in the corner with Puff + hooff.
> 
> http://www.ldolphin.org/zpe.html
> >
> >

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web