On Saturday, October 24, 2020 at 6:20:45 PM UTC-5 Brent wrote: > > > On 10/24/2020 3:56 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Saturday, October 24, 2020 at 5:22:32 PM UTC-5 Brent wrote: > >> >> >> On 10/24/2020 3:02 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> >> On Saturday, October 24, 2020 at 3:16:31 PM UTC-5 Brent wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 10/24/2020 5:29 AM, Jason Resch wrote: >>> >>> >>> It's using the Planck scale as the upper bound. >>> >>> >>> So what? That's assuming the Planck scale means something, but it's >>> already rejected as 'unatural'. You can't have it both ways. >>> >>> Brent >>> >> >> The Planck length is the scale at which the Compton wavelength of a >> particle is equal to the circumference of a black hole. It is not hard to >> calculate. This is then the smallest scale at which information can be >> accessed. It is the smallest region where a qubit can be isolated. With >> the accelerated expansion of the universe there are vacuum modes passing >> across the cosmic horizon. However, at the same time transPlanckian modes >> are stretched across this scale. It is also nature's way of providing a >> natural renormalization cut-off scale. >> >> >> But the context was calculation of the vacuum energy density. Absent >> even a theory of quantum gravity I see no reason to take seriously the idea >> that the vacuum energy density consists of the ground state energy of the >> various quantum fields, much less that there is some "fine tuned" >> cancelation of the fermion and boson components. >> >> Brent >> > > It is something to take seriously. We can consider it important in an > interacting field theoretic sense, where disconnected virtual fields are > removed by normal ordering. However, gravitation does rear its head and > even the vacuum disconnected from other QFTs has gravitational content. > > > I'm not saying we shouldn't consider the vacuum energy density of the > fields, but that the idea that there is an ensemble of universes densities > so that we find ourselves in the one where they almost, but not quite, > cancel out seems like no better than the Walter Cronkite explanation, "And > that's the way it is." For an ensemble theory to have any weight there > would need to be theory that provided some probability distribution for the > various fields. > > Brent >
There are now thousands of physicists, ranging from research graduate students to tenured professors, who are pouring over Feynman diagram calculations. They are pulling their hair out and are in a sort of mental agony. They are searching for this holy grail of finding how these diagrams will with Ward identities etc cancel terms and result in a finite answer. With the multiverse and computing generalized YM gauge 4-forms through D-branes the problem is far more vast. If there is anything this is telling us, it that this is not the right method. If Sabine Hossenfelder has said one thing right it is that real progress in physics comes when a new theoretical construct solves a conflict or paradox in our understanding. My sense with these problems is entirely the same. Computing lots of perturbation terms or series is not going to give you the final answer. There is some simple statement on the nature of things that will allow us to bypass all of that. That is of course if there is some resolution to this problem at all. My thoughts on this is there is some dualism between local YM fields and nonlocal entanglements, where they are formally the same. In a nonlocal setting there is a topological order, while in the more local setting there are (super)symmetry protected topological fields LC -- 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/37678375-9a81-45fc-bcd1-bb3fb03cf988n%40googlegroups.com.
