Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[Michael Mozina]

Apparently reading comprehension is not your strong suit. How does studying evolution in the lab test, for example, theories about the extinction of the dinosaurs?

It's you that seem to have a comprehension problem. I just explained how these things have been 'tested' here on earth at the level of micro evolutionary pressures and natural selection. As far as dinosaur extinction theories, they too are based on observed processes in nature, including a nifty little layer of iridium around the whole planet (common in meteorites) that defines the boundary layers where the dinosaur fossils end.

Whereas these theories are based on observed phenomenon of meteorite impacts on Earth, your inflation thing is purely an ad hoc creation from the mind of one single individual.

In case anyone else is reading this, I'll explain a little. Inflation is the theory that in the early stages of the universe, the dominant form of energy was in a condensate of a very massive scalar field.

So essentially "In the beginning, inflation created the heavens and the Earth." Got any evidence of inflation?

That form of energy has the interesting property that it doesn't redshift much at all - that is, its energy density is almost constant as the universe expands

Oh, so inflation is "supernatural" then too?

(as I showed explicitly above, that fact is a consequence of the mathematics of general relativity - if it's wrong, GR is wrong too).

This is an absolute lie, and you should know it if you don't know it. Inflation would only fit in a "blunder theory". Einstein rejected such theories and did not use them.

During inflation the rate of expansion accelerated very rapidly and the universe expanded enormously.

This varies from the book of Genesis in what empirically demonstrated way?

That left many extremely characteristic features on the large scale structure of the universe - among other things it made the cosmic microwave background very uniform, but with a specific and characteristic pattern of fluctuations imprinted in it, it reduced the spatial curvature to very low levels, and it created a very specific and particular pattern in the structure of galaxy clusters.

Oh, that great and powerful inflation thing must really love us for providing us with all that evidence of his existence.

All of those effects have been observed by a succession of satellite and earth-based observatories over the last two decades, to the point that the experimental support for inflation is pretty overwhelming.

Experiments have "control mechanisms". Your industry is incapable of understanding the difference between an "experiment' and "subjective interpretation of an uncontrolled observation". Ari's solution to redshift even negates any need at all for a creation event, and all it requires is a simple EM field. Why not go with his idea rather than some inflation faerie creation event?

My guess is a Nobel prize will be awarded for it soon - and the Nobel physics committee is known for being extremely conservative about only awarding the prize for things with such overwhelming evidence that they are nearly certain to be right.

Pffft. Ya right. No doubt they'll award one soon because the skeptics are getting louder and they need something to prop up this pitiful theory pretty soon or the whole thing is going to fall apart.

In the future, inflation will continue to be tested using observations of various other astrophysical quantities

This is not a "test". This is a subjective interpretation of an observation. You guys seem to be clueless about the need for a control mechanism in a real scientific test. You're just like astrologers. You can't demonstrate your claims on Earth, but that doesn't prevent you from tinkering with your theories based on astrological events. Hoy. It's just numerology for astronomers.

However it cannot be tested in labs in the forseeable future, because the scalar field responsible for it has a mass that probably makes it impossible to produce at even the most power particle accelerators we have accessible.

How convenient that your theory is indistinguishable from all other faith based creation events and it cannot be "tested" by mere humans. Gee, where have I heard all of this before? Oh ya, church. This is the part where astronomy becomes a religion and dogma becomes more important than empirical support.

So just like any other religion, I just have to accept your postulated deity on "faith", and unlike any typical religious deity, I can't even talk to your deity? Is that about it?

Holy cow! In that case I'll happily take any other "creation force" found in religion, because at least I have some hope of experiencing that deity on Earth according to most religious texts. Your deity is utterly useless.

 

[Michael Mozina]

A baldfaced lie repeated for the 10th time.... is still a baldfaced lie.

Boloney. Name *ONE* piece of actual "evidence" from a real "experiment" involving an actual "control mechanism" that supports the idea of inflation. A pure observation combined with a purely subjective interpretation is not an "experiment" and therefor you lack *any* supporting empirical evidence to support inflation. You can't just point at the sky to get evidence in magical mathematical inflation faeries.

The universe is probably infinite in extent - certainly that is the simplest hypothesis that fits the data. Anything else requires an additional assumption.

Fail.

You "failed" to explain how it suddenly became "infinite" in your mind (this isn't the general consensus by the way), or how you got there without "superluminal" expansion.

Classic. Now you're contradicting yourself in two successive phrases in the same sentence.

No I'm not. I don't know how the universe go there, but I know that magical faeries didn't have anything to do with it because they do not exist in nature. I now that unicorns had nothing to do with it either, because they never show up on Earth either. I also know that your inflation faeries didn't fart the universe into existence because they never show up on Earth either.

Hmmm... how odd. I could swear it was a poster with the same name as you that just said "...but alas that working GPS system demonstrates Einstein's math has merit" and "Yes, but if you want your GPS to work properly, you'll need GR".

How many times are you folks going to keep ignoring the difference between something like gravity or an EM field that *does* show up in controlled experimentation and faeries that do not?

How odd - I could swear there was a sentence in this same post that said "I just know it has nothing to do with inflation because inflation does not exist".

Yep. In science I can safely exclude all things that have never been empirically demonstrated as being the cause of any particular observation. Invisible dark faeries had nothing to do with anything because they don't show up in a lab in an "experiment".

Getting dizzy from all that squirming and flipflopping yet?

Aren't you tired of defending a "supernatural deity" yet? Inflation is absolutely no better than any religious creation source. Get real. All you have is "dogma" that can't even be tested on Earth. How is that any different from any other "religion" that is based entirely on "faith"?

I remind you again that Ari's solution to the redshift problem requires no inflation, just EM fields. Your choice of redshift "interpretations" is entirely "subjective" and it is not "tested" anymore than Ari's theory is "tested". The difference is that his theory "could" be "tested", whereas you theory cannot be "tested" at all.

 

[sol invictus]

It's great - there's no need to argue with you since you contradict yourself. I'll just respond to one thing, and let you do the talking for the rest:

This is an absolute lie, and you should know it if you don't know it.

One of the nice things about internet fora is that all the posts are there and cannot be altered. Anyone reading this can simply go back to my post where I proved this mathematically, using general relativity, and challenged you to find an error. All you could do was ask for "units". The proof is completely general (it's just a property of scalar fields). As with all physics it makes no difference what units you express things in, nor does it matter for the argument what the magnitude of the scalar potential energy is (as is obvious from the proof).

Now I'll let you argue with yourself:

Experiments have "control mechanisms".

As far as dinosaur extinction theories, they too are based on observed processes in nature, including a nifty little layer of iridium around the whole planet (common in meteorites) that defines the boundary layers where the dinosaur fossils end.

Your industry is incapable of understanding the difference between an "experiment' and "subjective interpretation of an uncontrolled observation".

As far as dinosaur extinction theories, they too are based on observed processes in nature, including a nifty little layer of iridium around the whole planet (common in meteorites) that defines the boundary layers where the dinosaur fossils end.

This is not a "test". This is a subjective interpretation of an observation. You guys seem to be clueless about the need for a control mechanism in a real scientific test.

As far as dinosaur extinction theories, they too are based on observed processes in nature, including a nifty little layer of iridium around the whole planet (common in meteorites) that defines the boundary layers where the dinosaur fossils end.

How convenient that your theory is indistinguishable from all other faith based creation events and it cannot be "tested" by mere humans.

As far as dinosaur extinction theories, they too are based on observed processes in nature, including a nifty little layer of iridium around the whole planet (common in meteorites) that defines the boundary layers where the dinosaur fossils end.

So just like any other religion, I just have to accept your postulated deity meteorite on "faith", and unlike any typical religious deity, I can't even talk to your deity? Is that about it?

Fixed that last one for you.

 

[Michael Mozina]

It's great - there's no need to argue with you since you contradict yourself. I'll just respond to one thing, and let you do the talking for the rest:
One of the nice things about internet fora is that all the posts are there and cannot be altered. Anyone reading this can simply go back to my post where I proved this mathematically, using general relativity, and challenged you to find an error. All you could do was ask for "units". The proof is completely general (it's just a property of scalar fields). As with all physics it makes no difference what units you express things in, nor does it matter for the argument what the magnitude of the scalar potential energy is (as is obvious from the proof).

The only thing you "proved" is that you have no idea what a Higgs condensate is, and you are completely incapable of demonstrating your claims in actual units of measurement. What you "proved" is that your math is "made up" because you can't demonstrate it, and because you can't even document it properly! Sheesh. You botched the whole thing the moment you claimed a Higg's condensate couldn't be viewed as a collection of particles. Anyone with a background in particle physics knows damn well that is pure BS. You just "made up" the properties of the "condensate" as you went just like you made up inflation.

Now I'll let you argue with yourself: Fixed that last one for you.

What are you even thinking? Meteorites *do* show up on Earth and leave physical traces too, including parts of the actual meteorite. We create "falling objects" ourselves in fact so all of this is easily demonstrated on Earth, right down the iridium deposits in the K-T boundary layer! By your own explanation inflation will *never* have a tangible influence on anything on Earth. You're just digging yourself in deeper and deeper and you don't even realize it.

 

[big-E]

Michael:

You're going to need to do a lot better if you want to change anyone's mind on this issue. Most of what you're saying comes across as '*I* don't understand or believe this, so I don't think any of you do, or should, either'. A common argument among anti-evolutionists, of course. Doesn't make them right either.

While you might consider this to be commendably 'sceptical', it's not really working for the following reasons:

You've really not moved beyond your personal disbelief - you're not engaging with any of the explanations, questions or evidence presented.

You've not shown any kind of mathematics yourself while dismissing other peoples' maths through, again, your personal refusal to accept it. Asking for units just makes you look like you have no idea what you are talking about. Have you really never dealt with 'pure' maths?

No-one agrees with you that the scientific method is incompatible with theorising-by-devising-models-that-fit-the-facts, or that *only* empirical demonstrations can be used to support theories.

You've failed to point out anything that has been observed that doesn't fit the model. Even if it was made up out of thin air (which it wasn't) you at least have to concede that it works as a model. Given the complexity, that's quite an achievement purely in itself.

You keep insisting on silly standards of evidence that you don't apply to your own much-loved theories - why should anyone care that no gadgets are powered by inflation? Are any gadgets powered by the weak force? Or do you, by extension, refuse to believe in that too?



I don't claim to understand much of cosmology. I consider myself pretty smart and I'm intrigued by it. I find many aspects of it incredible and almost impossible to believe, but I don't consider that to be a reason to disbelieve them. I don't expect cosmologists to be able to demonstrate these things in front of me. In fact, I expect them *not* to be able to do so. Wouldn't be cosmology otherwise.

I do expect them to be able to convince each other of the merits of their ideas. In fact your abysmal failure to convince anyone of anything so far leads me to conclude you're not much of a cosmologist.

Basically you're not getting anywhere here. Probably best to concede that maybe the reason you don't 'get' this theory is not because it's wrong, but because you fundamentally don't understand it. Further education might resolve this, but your attitude to being educated by actually-knowledgeable people suggests otherwise.

You'll be waiting a long time before your current approach puts even the slightest doubt in the mind of anyone who knows their stuff in this field. I guess in the mean time you can sit back and content yourself with the knowledge that you're right and eeeeeveryone else is wrong... you might want to check what sort of company that puts you in though. For every genuine maverick genius there's a million crackpots and failures. Which are you?

 

[Ziggurat]

The only thing you "proved" is that you have no idea what a Higgs condensate is

Yeah, um... no. Sol most definitely knows what a Higgs condensate is. He's one of the first guys I'd go to if I needed any clarification of what's available on Wikipedia.

You botched the whole thing the moment you claimed a Higg's condensate couldn't be views as a collection of particles. Anyone with a background in particle physics knows damn well that is pure BS.

Nonsense. Particles are excitations on top of the condensate. The condensate itself is not made up of particles. The use of the word in field theories is different from its use in terms such as Bose-Einstein condensate. See, for example, vacuum expectation values and cannonical quantization.

 

[Skwinty]

A star? No, not even close. They're trying to produce a fusion reaction similar to the one we can already produce in a hydrogen bomb (but without the mess). Fusion powers stars, but they are much more than just that - it's like saying if you're trying to light a match your goal is to create a car, since cars run on combustion..

My bad, I never mentioned "miniature"

This from NIF webpage

Creating a miniature star on Earth: that's the goal of the National Ignition Facility (NIF), the world's largest laser. When completed in 2009, NIF will focus the intense energy of 192 giant laser beams on a BB-sized target filled with hydrogen fuel – fusing, or igniting, the hydrogen atoms' nuclei. This is the same fusion energy process that makes the stars shine and provides the life-giving energy of the sun. NIF is a program of the U.S. Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration

 

[Skwinty]

Whoa! Stop right there. They're not trying to detect dark energy in lab experiments - I'm not aware of any theory in which that's even remotely possible. .

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0703/0703364v2.pdf

 

[sol invictus]

Creating a miniature star on Earth: that's the goal of the National Ignition Facility (NIF), the world's largest laser. When completed in 2009, NIF will focus the intense energy of 192 giant laser beams on a BB-sized target filled with hydrogen fuel – fusing, or igniting, the hydrogen atoms' nuclei. This is the same fusion energy process that makes the stars shine and provides the life-giving energy of the sun. NIF is a program of the U.S. Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration

That's just poetry (and obfuscation, since one major reason they're doing it is actually nuclear weapons research) - read the text after the :. What they're trying to do is achieve fusion. That's all, and fusion does not equal star.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0703/0703364v2.pdf

OK, point taken. But that's a very exotic (and highly dubious at a glance) model. In the simplest models, dark energy is nothing more or less than a small positive cosmological constant, and absent some brilliantly clever idea detecting it would require extreme precision.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Michael:

You're going to need to do a lot better if you want to change anyone's mind on this issue.

Well, I'll probably need to keep at it for awhile. It's been what, a week so far?

Most of what you're saying comes across as '*I* don't understand or believe this, so I don't think any of you do, or should, either'.

I don't profess to "understand" numerology either because nobody can empirically demonstrate it has merit. Likewise I don't believe anyone who claims to be an "expert" on inflation faeries either. If and when you guys come up with a useful product based on inflation, I might change my option. If ou can't show it has some affect on objects in nature, I have no reason to believe it's not a figment of your imagination, and I don't really care what you think you "understand" about inflation.

A common argument among anti-evolutionists, of course. Doesn't make them right either.

Come on. You're defending a creation event with superluminal expansion properties. Don't even start.

While you might consider this to be commendably 'sceptical', it's not really working for the following reasons:

You've really not moved beyond your personal disbelief - you're not engaging with any of the explanations, questions or evidence presented.

The only so called "evidence" that was actually presented was purely a "subjective" *interpretation* of the observation of redshift. Big deal. I've show you Ari's work too and none of you touched it. All it requires to "explain" redshift is a common, ordinary EM field, certainly nothing "exotic" like inflation or dark energy.

You've not shown any kind of mathematics yourself while dismissing other peoples' maths through, again, your personal refusal to accept it.

This problem is not related to 'mathematics'. It is related to "physics", specifically your physical incapacity to demonstrate your math has merit anywhere, *before* you start pointing to the sky.

Asking for units just makes you look like you have no idea what you are talking about. Have you really never dealt with 'pure' maths?

Excuse me, but asking for units is what "physics" is all about. Sorry it you aren't into physics, but that's your problem not mine. I happen to know that Higgs condensates *are* in fact collection of particles and therefore the evidence presented thus far is purely bogus nonsense. If he can show how his Higgs Condensate retains constant density in real units ,the obvious being Higgs Bosons per cubic meter, then I'll worry about his math. Right now, it's damn obvious he has no clue what a Higgs condensate is.

No-one agrees with you that the scientific method is incompatible with theorising-by-devising-models-that-fit-the-facts, or that *only* empirical demonstrations can be used to support theories.

And the moment you can actually empirically demonstrate that inflation isn't a figment of Guth's imagination, I'll be happy to let you "scale it to size" and treat it like any other empirical theory. Right or wrong, at least I would know it is based upon a real thing that shows up in nature.

You've failed to point out anything that has been observed that doesn't fit the model.

That isn't actually my job since you have provided me with no evidence that inflation has any affect on anything so your math is thus far irrelevant. Your math is simply a curve fitting exercise with magic forces.

Even if it was made up out of thin air (which it wasn't)

Sure it was. I can even tell you the individual that did it. It was Alan Guth. Inflation theory certainly wasn't a part of BB theory prior to Guth's writings. It didn't come from a controlled experiment like a neutrino theory, but rather it was always a "point at the sky" curve fitting exercise, nothing more.

you at least have to concede that it works as a model. Given the complexity, that's quite an achievement purely in itself.

Pfft. If I simply pilfered you math on inflation and attributed the same observations on invisible elves, you wouldn't believe that my invisible elves did it, would you? That math is just posticted nonsense as far as I know.

You keep insisting on silly standards of evidence that you don't apply to your own much-loved theories

That is false. I require a demonstration of gravity. I require a demonstration of EM fields. The both pass the 'smell test' and both of them are "qualified" theories from the halls of empirical physics.

Inflation is bogus nonsense and "dark energy" is simply a placeholder term for human ignorance according to most astronomers I've talked with over the last few years. Nothing like these things have been shown to exist here on Earth. Period.

why should anyone care that no gadgets are powered by inflation?

Would you care that my magic elves could not be demonstrate assuming I simply pilfered your inflation maths? If you can't make inflation do squat here on Earth that is the least big useful, then why should I believe it's not a figment of your imagination?

Are any gadgets powered by the weak force? Or do you, by extension, refuse to believe in that too?

No, by extension I have seen all but the Higgs boson demonstrated in a lab, and I know of at least one billion dollar empirical experiment in the works that is intended to demonstrate the Higgs. I'm willing to give the Higgs theory some latitude while we await the outcome of those experiments. Got any experiments in the works for "inflation' that I might read about?

I don't claim to understand much of cosmology. I consider myself pretty smart and I'm intrigued by it. I find many aspects of it incredible and almost impossible to believe, but I don't consider that to be a reason to disbelieve them.

Well, when they make up a "supernatural" inflation field, and stuff in "dark forces", my skepticism starts to kick in. I can't help but find these to be "extraordinary" claims that should come with "extraordinary" support. Instead it's all based upon a subjective redshift "interpretation".

I don't expect cosmologists to be able to demonstrate these things in front of me.

Why not? If I told you that my magic elves did it rather than inflation, wouldn't you expect more than me to just pilfer their inflation maths and hand it to you, right?

In fact, I expect them *not* to be able to do so. Wouldn't be cosmology otherwise.

IMO that is incorrect. EU/PC theory is based upon demonstrated processes of nature. Gravity and EM fields show up in a lab. Whole cosmology theories are based on just these two things.

I do expect them to be able to convince each other of the merits of their ideas.

The convinced each other of the merits of Chapman's theories for 60 years before satellites in space demonstrated that Birkeland was correct, not Chapman. I'm not going to be around for another 60 years for them to figure out he was right about the charge separation between the surface of the sun and the heliosphere. They operate at a snails pace and they still believe in "dark evil energy".

In fact your abysmal failure to convince anyone of anything so far leads me to conclude you're not much of a cosmologist.

Your inability to see some of my points suggests to me that you aren't much of a "skeptic" too. It's only been a week however, and Guths ideas weren't accepted in a week either. What exactly did you expect in a week?

Basically you're not getting anywhere here.

Maybe not, but I'm "having fun" and that's been my motive. I'm detached from the fruits of my labor.

Probably best to concede that maybe the reason you don't 'get' this theory is not because it's wrong, but because you fundamentally don't understand it.

I'm sure a numerologist and an astrologer would claim the same thing because they couldn't prove their point in an empirical experiment complete with a control mechanism. It sounds like a pitiful excuse from a skeptics point of view. I don't profess to "understand" why gravity works, but I can experience it here on Earth without even understanding the math part for that matter. The same is true of EM fields. I don't have to understand the math that went into building my computer to use my computer. I know gravity and EM fields exist in nature, even if I *never* fully understand the *final* math that defines either theory.

Further education might resolve this, but your attitude to being educated by actually-knowledgeable people suggests otherwise.

Not one single one of them can make inflation do anything to anything here on Earth. They are like an expert on numerology. I can't get them to demonstrate their claims, but they all claim to have some secret superior knowledge to be found in their maths. Show me. Do something useful with it, or actually "predict" the actual outcome of something in an empirical experiment based on this theory.

You'll be waiting a long time before your current approach puts even the slightest doubt in the mind of anyone who knows their stuff in this field.

Frankly I'm more interested in those folks who are real skeptics and aren't going to be swayed by a mathematical mythos and a bunch of ego posturing in the absence of a demonstration of their claim. The "experts" have so much ego and prestige invested in their ideas, they will likely be the last "flat earthers" when it comes to this topic.

I guess in the mean time you can sit back and content yourself with the knowledge that you're right and eeeeeveryone else is wrong...

Is that an appeal to popularity fallacy or what? You realize I'm not the only skeptic of this theory, right?

you might want to check what sort of company that puts you in though. For every genuine maverick genius there's a million crackpots and failures. Which are you?

Only time will tell.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Yeah, um... no. Sol most definitely knows what a Higgs condensate is. He's one of the first guys I'd go to if I needed any clarification of what's available on Wikipedia.

No, on this issue he absolutely doesn't have a clue what Higgs condensate is and he's making it up as he goes. It is in fact theorized to be a collection of Higgs boson *particles* arranged in a close arrangement like any other particle "condensate". He claimed we could not view it as "particles". He's wrong.

Your following him around like a lost sheep is another example of why this industry is in trouble today.

Nonsense. Particles are excitations on top of the condensate.

The condensate is also a collection of such particles! Where do you figure the particles some from?

The condensate itself is not made up of particles.

Of course it is. The natural units of measurement here to demonstrate his claim is "Higg Bosons per meter cubed." If he tries to do this, he falls flat on his face because he's created a magic "condensate" that spits out an infinite number of Higgs particles with no change in density. Bull.

This is exactly analogous to me taking a Bose-Einstein condensate, expanding the volume by a factor of ten and then counting the actual particles per cubic meter. In both cases the number of particles per cubic meter will be significantly less than when the condensate was more "condensed". You've created a magic "condensate".

 

[Michael Mozina]

Let's start with a little lesson in real physics.......

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/11353

According to the Standard Model, the vacuum in which all particle interactions take place is not actually empty, but is instead filled with a condensate of Higgs particles.

The condensate is simply a collection of Higgs particles gentlemen. That's your basic problem in a nutshell. Matter and energy are the same thing, and the condensate has a specific amount of mass and energy that depends on the number of Higgs in the condensate. You can't just make up new Higgs particles out of thin air without violating the conservation of energy laws! Come on.

 

[Ziggurat]

Your following him around like a lost sheep is another example of why this industry is in trouble today.

The natural units of measurement here to demonstrate his claim is "Higg Bosons per meter cubed."

No, it isn't. How many photons are there in the static electric field of an electron? By your logic, it should have a density, a "photons per meter cubed". But a static electric field doesn't have any such quantity. Neither does the vacuum electromagnetic field (which, btw, you CAN measure in lab).

I direct your attention once more to this page. Note that it makes a distinction:
"The only exception to [zero vacuum expectation value] is to shift the field by a constant before embarking on the process above, ie, quantize the field φ(x,t) − v, where v is a number and not an operator. The quantity v then denotes the condensate of the field φ, and the particle states become the excitations over the new vacuum defined with this condensate."

Kinda like how photons are excitations in the electromagnetic field, not the electromagnetic field itself. Note that it also distinguishes the sort of condensate you refer to: "A bosonic condensate is a coherent state of zero wavenumber bosons." These two kinds of condensates are not the same thing.

 

[Ziggurat]

You can't just make up new Higgs particles out of thin air without violating the conservation of energy laws! Come on.

Why on earth do you think conservation of energy is involved in the question of whether or not Higgs particles can exist? If they exist, we expect they should have to obey such conservation laws, but their existence most definitely doesn't require any violation of energy conservation.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Why on earth do you think conservation of energy is involved in the question of whether or not Higgs particles can exist?

That's a weird way to word your question IMO. The Higgs particles have mass and therefore energy. You can't just "make them up on a whim" without violating the laws of conservation of energy. You can of course remove one from the condensate and many of them from the condensate, but you can't just make them up as you go!

If they exist, we expect they should have to obey such conservation laws, but their existence most definitely doesn't require any violation of energy conservation.

Assuming a bang actually occurred, whatever "energy" was released in the "bang" evidently preceded the event, so no conservation laws were violated. Your Higgs particles aren't magic particles. They work like any other particle, like a photon, like an electron, like anything else we find in nature. The "density" of the condensate is simply a measurement of particle density per some volume.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I direct your attention once more to this page. Note that it makes a distinction:
"The only exception to [zero vacuum expectation value] is to shift the field by a constant before embarking on the process above, ie, quantize the field φ(x,t) − v, where v is a number and not an operator. The quantity v then denotes the condensate of the field φ, and the particle states become the excitations over the new vacuum defined with this condensate."

In other words, the Higgs particle is simply an excitation state. The density of Higgs particles per cubic meter is not *increasing*.

 

[sol invictus]

In other words, the Higgs particle is simply an excitation state. The density of Higgs particles per cubic meter is not *increasing*.

Higgs particles are the excitations on top of the condensate. Asking how many there are per cubic meter in the condensate is like asking how many water waves there are per cubic meter of water.

If you want to know the energy density of the Higgs condensate (relative to the uncondensed phase, for example), look it up. And you can even divide it by the rest mass of the Higgs and call that a number density - but the result will be physically meaningless.

ETA - by the way, here's an excellent way to see that the Higgs condensate is not composed of some fixed number density of Higgs particles. Imagine starting in the uncondensed phase (for example, in the early universe when the temperature T was very high). When T is large there will be a thermal population of excitations of the Higgs field around the uncondensed phase, along with particles of every particle species. Now gradually lower the temperature. When you hit a certain critical T, a second order phase transition will take place and the condensate will suddenly and spontaneously form. Right at that temperature the excitations of the Higgs are massless, and there will be a very large number of very low energy excitations, and the correlation length goes to infinity. If you continue to cool, a burst of energy will be released as the condensate forms, most of which will go into creating a bunch of other particles.

On the other hand you could also start at zero temperature with the Higgs field uncondensed and homogeneous. This time there are zero Higgs excitations in the initial state, but nevertheless the field will immediately and spontaneously condense, releasing energy into various other particles.

In neither case is the energy density of the final condensate related in any way to the number density of Higgs field excitations present either before or after the transition.

 

[Ziggurat]

The Higgs particles have mass and therefore energy. You can't just "make them up on a whim" without violating the laws of conservation of energy. You can of course remove one from the condensate and many of them from the condensate, but you can't just make them up as you go!

Photons have energy. But you can create them all day long without violating energy conservation. They don't come from anywhere either. There's no condensate you're removing them from. There's no upper limit to the number of photons you can create (provided you have the energy), because they aren't coming from anywhere, so there's nothing to run out of.

Your Higgs particles aren't magic particles. They work like any other particle, like a photon, like an electron

There's a rather important difference between photons and electrons: photons are their own anti-particle, but electrons are not. The Higgs particle is its own anti-particle.

The "density" of the condensate is simply a measurement of particle density per some volume.

For a bosonic condensate, yes. But as I've already pointed out, the Higgs condensate is not a bosonic condensate, but rather the vacuum expectation value for the Higgs field. Just like photons, you can create as many Higgs particles as you want to (provided you have the necessary energy) - they don't get removed from the condensate when they get created. The condensate therefore does not have a number density associated with it.

You are deeply confused about the relationship between particles and fields.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Higgs particles are the excitations on top of the condensate. Asking how many there are per cubic meter in the condensate is like asking how many water waves there are per cubic meter of water.

No, it's like asking how many water molecules exist in the liquid water state, and how many of them remain frozen, but still remain in the same container. The number of the molecules or particles never changes, they just have an excitation state and a lower energy state. Period. No new Higgs bosons are created or destroyed. The density is not affected by their change of state! You guys are missing the key issue here. No new particles are being created, and therefore any increase in volume simply equates to a decrease in density per volume unit.

 

[Ziggurat]

In other words, the Higgs particle is simply an excitation state. The density of Higgs particles per cubic meter is not *increasing*.

I don't recall anyone saying it was increasing. But it could, depending on circumstances, because Higgs particles can be created an annihilated, just like photons.