On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 7:49:42 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 12/7/2017 3:43 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
>
> https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23631550-600-dark-energy-is-mutating-with-grave-consequences-for-the-cosmos/
>
> This is interesting and a bit disturbing. Phantom energy means the vacuum
> energy density is increasing with time. This means that not only is the
> universe accelerating the acceleration itself is increasing. With ordinary
> dark energy the quantum vacuum energy is constant which gives an
> exponential rule for the time dependent separation of two test masses
> (galaxies) is exponential, but it asymptotes. There is some time in the
> future where the rate of separation diverges. With exponential expansion
> things gravitationally bound, such as galaxies, experience no increase in a
> force pulling them apart. With phantom energy that does happen. In fact
> towards the end stellar systems of planets get torn apart, then the stars
> and planet. then atoms, then hadrons are pulled apart into a plasma of
> quarks and gluons and ... it hits a gravitational singularity called the
> big rip. Everything is snuffed out of existence.
>
>
> Trump is snuffed out and you're complaining!?
>
>
> What is disturbing about these data is it implies this has been going on
> very noticeably during the past history of the cosmos. So the quantum
> vacuum has been changing through the last 10 or more billion years. That is
> what is most unsettling. It implies something very odd is going on with
> quantum mechanics that frankly makes no sense. Certainly the contribution
> to the vacuum energy of the universe can't be due to some change in known
> quantum fields. The fine structure constant α = e^2/ħc ~ 1/137.0, for e the
> electric charge ħ the Planck unit of action and c the speed of light, is
> measured from distant atomic transitions is galaxies and no change is
> observed. If there were changes to the QCD vacuum energy this would be seen
> in changes in the mass of protons and nuclei. No such thing is observed,
> for this too would impact atomic transitions in atoms in distant galaxies.
>
> Before going into more physics there is the lighter disturbing element to
> this in that it appears Schopenhauer may not have been half baked when he
> said we life in the worst of all possible worlds. This was a sort of
> anti-Liebnitzian stance he had. In my philosophy classes I couldn't stand
> Schopenhauer; I always groaned when he came up. I always thought he was a
> clinically depressed nut who took too long at getting around to his
> suicide. A phantom universe is not different than any other; no matter what
> type of universe you exist in you are doomed. Well, except for the steady
> State cosmology that is empirically ruled out. However, with phantom energy
> you are not only doomed, but it is coming a whole lot sooner.
>
>
> It may be coming sooner, but I'd still bet on the universe outlasting me,
> and you too.
>
>
I have not done the calculation based on the data given, but I suspect the
big rip is on the order of tens of billions of years into the future. It
would be interesting to work this with the limit the w → -1 from below with
p = wρ. In this way the physics of large vacuum at the time boundaries
reflecting fields would still operate.
This is actually holography. The holographic content of the vacuum is
contained on the boundary, which is the Planck wall at the start of
inflation and at the end.
As for the matter asymmetry, that remains an open question. Maybe matter
and anti-matter occur preferentially in different regions that are causally
disconnected.
LC
>
> I think the universe consists of only one electron, and only one type of
> neutrino, and one photon and one up quark with r and b charge and ... . The
> reason why we see so many of them is they careen between the early universe
> with inflationary expansion where the vacuum energy is enormous, and they
> careen off the future vacuum energy where again it is enormous. The tiny
> cosmological constant we observe is bounded in time by two huge vacuum
> energies. So a type of elementary particle, say an electron, cycles back
> and forth in time appearing as an electron here when going forwards in
> time, an anti-electron there when going backwards in time after being
> deflected by the future big rip singularity and appears as an electron
> somewhere else. So the electrons running in the wires of my computer are
> all the same, and the same as electrons in a white dwarf star exerting
> degenerate pressure, a positron generated near a black hole, or an electron
> being ejected by a hot star.
>
>
> But then why are there all electrons here?
>
>
> This is potentially my solution to the whole problem of the 123 orders of
> magnitude issue with the quantum vacuum. Quantum fields are modeled as
> harmonic oscillators. The pendulum with small swing is a classical case.
> However, quantum mechanically a zero-swinging pendulum (a plumb bob) has an
> uncertainty in its position so it has some swing --- no matter how much you
> try to get rid of it. If you sum over all possible frequencies quantum
> fields give this zero point energy, or quantum vacuum, that has 10^{123}
> times what would determine the cosmological constant. This is a big
> outstanding problem. It might just be this huge vacuum does exist, but it
> exists not locally in time, but at the very beginning and the end.
>
>
> You don't like the holographic theory of the CC?
>
>
> So there is opportunity here, but it does ultimately mean we are DOOMED!
>
>
> Are you going to start a website...doomporn.org?
>
> Brent
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
