On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 9:21:29 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 1:07 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 3:17:41 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> >>> Good question. Best answer to date is that it is Einstein's cosmological >>> constant. Virtual particles can play no role because disconnected particle >>> loops are necessarily of zero energy. >>> >>> Bruce >>> >> >> You identify Einstein's CC with the vacuum energy. I have some related >> questions. How is the vacuum energy measured, does it include dark energy >> (if not explicitly then by default), >> > > Dark energy is currently thought to be Einstein's CC, and it is measured > basically by looking at brightness of supernovae in distant galaxies. The > zero point energy of field theory is much too large to be dark energy. So > most probably, zero point energy is an artefact of crude field quantization > methods, and is actually exactly zero. >
Yes, as I recall you made this argument years ago on Stenger's private list, that the zero point contribution of the EM field, which is a "mere" 120 orders of magnitude too large, is an artifact of quantization. Your argument is supported by the fact that 1/2*hbar*omega cannot represent a photon; and moreover, that nature starts with a quantized field, not with a continuous field which it somehow quantizes. Can this same argument be extended to the strong and weak forces; that is, do they have ground level energies with the same type of problem (for contributing to the zero point energy) as the quantized EM field? AG > > and finally, in your opinion is the net gravitational energy (positive >> mass equivalents using E = mc^2 plus negative potential energy) for the >> Cosmos exactly ZERO? >> > > No. Gravitational PE cannot cancel mass-energy or kinetic energy. The > total energy of the universe is measured by integrating over an enclosing > hypersurface. For a closed universe there is no such hypersurface, so the > total energy is undefined -- it is certainly not zero. Lawrence suggested > that canonical quantisation of gravity leads to the WdW equation, H\psi = > 0, where \psi is the wave function of the universe. But there is no reason > to equate H in this equation with the non-relativistic Hamiltonian or > energy operator. H = 0 is just a constraint on physics, not a measure of > anything. > I assume you're familiar with Tolman's argument that they cancel exactly, in his monograph entitled Relativity, Thermodynamics and Cosmology. I have not yet been able to get a PDF version of it, and haven't read the argument myself. But it seems to have been influential in reaching an opinion contrary to yours. Please comment on why you particularly dissent from Tolman's argument. AG > > Bruce > > Incidentally, I look forward to reading the article you posted on the >> myth of virtual particles. You ought to send this to the fellow in charge >> of Stenger's now private list who, as I recall, was quite enamored with >> virtual particles. AG >> > -- 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a5632940-331d-45a6-9278-622f62eca633%40googlegroups.com.
