The Most Foolish Theory in Physics

[technoextreme]

Hey, here is the hubbub.

I will buying my next packet of cigerrettes tomorrow morning - money probably that will probably be given to the fundings of the Afganistan War, so that some soldier will have relatively the same cost as the single bullet in his gun. But
what is even more disturbing is that he is probably stuck between the devil and the deep blue sea. He can either use that money i gave him to kill himself
in the head because he is about to be captured and tortured, or he can just shoot the next man he see's, despite any statistical difference in numbers.

Worst yet, this is what scientists do. They have a single bullet in their gun, and they can either shoot themselves with it (which is the theory by analogy)
or they can use it to shoot down the next theory that comes their way. Guess what? There is only one bullet, and since the conditions of the universe are not seemingly
willing to change desprately for a very long time, the big bang will go on forever, like some Greek Mythology of Religion, where the real God, is best as
described as being ''Dues Absconditus...'' - -- - a God hidden from man - -- - as much as the final theory will be.

Why the hell does this always happen when people present crazy insane ideas. They never ever EVER have any understanding how science works. Scientists never cold cocked ditch a theory even when they know parts of it are wrong.

 

[sol invictus]

No, i said there was similarities between the ZPF and the DE with the CMB, so there will be no apologies from me, for i see no mistake in this.

Yes, the CMB actually does make up a lot of the homogeneous energy of the cosmological value, whether you like or not.

And all energy does arise from the zero-point field, whether you like it or not.

No, none of the energy in the CMB arises from zero-point fluctuations. If it did, it wouldn't be CMB, it would be dark energy.

It's really not very complicated. There are two - can you count that high? - different components to the energy density of the universe at issue here.

One is the CMB - a thermal bath of photons at 2.7 K today, which is nearly (but not exactly) homogeneous and isotropic, which is detected directly by microwave telescopes, the energy density of which decreases with expansion like the fourth power of the scale factor of the universe, and which makes a negligible contribution to the total energy density today,

Two, there's dark energy - a form of energy, which may be zero point vacuum energy or may be something else, which is detected only indirectly by studying the expansion history of the universe, the energy density of which decrease with expansion slowly if at all, and which today appears to constitute about 73% of all the energy density in the universe.

 

[Singularitarian]

You are wrong. I think you will find that even the big bang arose from the potential of the ZPF. For clarification, might i suggest that you ''ask an astrophysicist.''

If you don't believe me this is what physics says, tough. I am not lying one bit.

 

[Evilgiraffe]

If you don't believe me this is what physics says, tough. I am not lying one bit.

It is, however, entirely likely that you are mistaken. Are you willing to entertain this possibility?

 

[Singularitarian]

It is, however, entirely likely that you are mistaken. Are you willing to entertain this possibility?

I am not likely to entertain the possibility, because after analysation i see no error in finding that the appearance of every bit of energy in the universe to have initially come from the vacuum which actually means that they needed to have come from the zero-point fequencies of the universe. Indeed, everything came from the ZPF.

The ZPF should be a cutoff from the real world, where nothing exists as well. But since particles appear from the vacuum all the time (even violating the conservation law surprisingly), just as they appeared from the vacuum at the big bang, all required the ZPF. The homogeneity is not due to the ZPF, and maybe this is what sol was confused about, but who knows?

 

[sol invictus]

You are wrong. I think you will find that even the big bang arose from the potential of the ZPF. For clarification, might i suggest that you ''ask an astrophysicist.''

You mean, like edd?

I'm a professional cosmologist. Like most professionals here I don't exactly throw my qualifications into the ring lightly, not least as there's a large number of highly knowledgeable laymen about.

Since you asked (which I previously suggested you didn't), I have a masters and PhD from a rather highly rated university. I've taught quantum mechanics at the university level, and cosmology, and astrophysics.

So - what question would you like to ask edd? "Is the CMB the same as the Zero-Point Energy Field?"

 

[Singularitarian]

Well, i hope Edd does not deny that essentialy for energy and matter to appear from the vacuum, it requires to come essentially from planckian limits and ultimately the energy of the ZPF....

...becuase i would then question his crudentials.

 

[ben m]

You are wrong. I think you will find that even the big bang arose from the potential of the ZPF. For clarification, might i suggest that you ''ask an astrophysicist.''

But I told you before and you contradicted me.

 

[sol invictus]

Well, i hope Edd does not deny that essentialy for energy and matter to appear from the vacuum, it requires to come essentially from planckian limits and ultimately the energy of the ZPF....

...becuase i would then question his crudentials.

I doubt he will either deny or confirm that, because no one knows whether something like that is true or not. It's not necessarily true that energy and matter "appeared from the vacuum", and if it did, it's not clear it requires energy.

But rather than change the subject, why not ask about the many... interesting statements you've made about the CMB? Like "The CMB according to the non-classical mathematical derivation is constant, that is why we represent it by the constant Lambda, which was that symbol i gave you \Lambda."

So for example we could ask him, "Is the CMB constant in time?" "Is the CMB represented by \Lambda?"

 

[Singularitarian]

Don't give me your nonsense now.

We do know its real, would you like evidence for this?

 

[Singularitarian]

But lets go to some of the statements you refer too.

I state the CMB density is certainly homogeneous due to the inflationary phase. A similar chracteristic of this is the energy that has a homogeneous state we call the cosmological consant. Now, that's my statement, and i've kept with the line that the cosological constant has a similarity with the CMB.

.....I'm sure he won't deny that one either.

 

[sol invictus]

We do know its real, would you like evidence for this?

I'd love to - but unfortunately you don't have any.

I state the CMB density is certainly homogeneous due to the inflationary phase. A similar chracteristic of this is the energy that has a homogeneous state we call the cosmological consant. Now, that's my statement, and i've kept with the line that the cosological constant has a similarity with the CMB.

Very well - since you're trying to pretend you said something else, it sounds like you've realized your mistake. Yes, the CMB is almost homogeneous spatially, as is dark energy (as far as we know), and as is matter on large scales.

But the time dependence of these things is totally different, as is the method for detecting them and what they're composed of - because they are three totally different things.

 

[Singularitarian]

Actually i've always included this in my message, i'm sure near the beginning when i was first asked.

Why are yo lying? Secondly, i do have evidence. Would you like to read it?

 

[sol invictus]

Actually i've always included this in my message, i'm sure near the beginning when i was first asked.

Really?

The universe is constantly expanding, and the CMB does not seem to be diluting due to the process, which means it is quite constant on cosmological standards.

So: do you admit that's wrong, or do you want to "ask an astrophysicist"?

 

[Singularitarian]

Since people like wiki here,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

''Zero-point energy is sometimes used as a synonym for the vacuum energy, an amount of energy associated with the vacuum of empty space. When the term is used in this way, sometimes it is referred to as the quantum vacuum zero point energy. In cosmology, the vacuum energy is one possible explanation for the cosmological constant.[1] The variation in zero-point energy as the boundaries of a region of vacuum move leads to the Casimir effect, which is observable in nanoscale devices.''

** The Casimir Force is associated to spontaneous appearance of a repulsive or attractive energy. This is the energy from nothing concept, hence, the appearance of energy is from the same mechanism.

 

[Singularitarian]

Really?




So: do you admit that's wrong, or do you want to "ask an astrophysicist"?

The dilution is slow i was meaning. It seems quite constant in its homogeneity right now, which was the constant-like nature we are measuring, even though its at a 10,000th in error in each direction. The Cosmological Energy is overuled now by the ZPF, for they are nearly the same generally when measuring the vacuum energy. This is why the ZPF and the appearance of the CMB are the same fundemantally by the same mechanism

 

[ben m]

Since people like wiki here,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

''Zero-point energy is sometimes used as a synonym for the vacuum energy, an amount of energy associated with the vacuum of empty space. When the term is used in this way, sometimes it is referred to as the quantum vacuum zero point energy. In cosmology, the vacuum energy is one possible explanation for the cosmological constant.[1] The variation in zero-point energy as the boundaries of a region of vacuum move leads to the Casimir effect, which is observable in nanoscale devices.''

All true.

** The Casimir Force is associated to spontaneous appearance of a repulsive or attractive energy. This is the energy from nothing concept, hence, the appearance of energy is from the same mechanism.

False.

I repeat: I have a deuterium lamp in my lab. It emits photons. Are these photons "appearing from the vacuum"? Are they energy from nothing? No, they're photons emitted by accelerating charges in a plasma. So is the CMB.

 

[ben m]

The dilution is slow i was meaning. It seems quite constant in its homogeneity right now, which was the constant-like nature we are measuring, even though its at a 10,000th in error in each direction.

Gibberish.

The Cosmological Energy is overuled now by the ZPF, for they are nearly the same generally when measuring the vacuum energy. This is why the ZPF and the appearance of the CMB are the same fundemantally by the same mechanism

(a) "That is why"? Nonsense. The second sentence does not follow from the first.
(b) Both sentences are wrong.

 

[Singularitarian]

All true.



False.

I repeat: I have a deuterium lamp in my lab. It emits photons. Are these photons "appearing from the vacuum"? Are they energy from nothing? No, they're photons emitted by accelerating charges in a plasma. So is the CMB.

No, the example you have given is an intentional red-herring, because the appearance of the photons can be described through decay processes. The appearance of matter at the fundamental vacuum level is just with what i said, and the conservation law is broken; your example conserves it.

 

[sol invictus]

The dilution is slow i was meaning.

On the contrary, the energy in the CMB dilutes faster than matter, dark energy, or curvature.

It seems quite constant in its homogeneity right now, which was the constant-like nature we are measuring, even though its at a 10,000th in error in each direction.

It's clear that you have misunderstood another very basic set of concepts. There's the spatial homogeneity of the CMB today, that's one thing. Then there's its time dependence, which is something else entirely.

The Cosmological Energy is overuled now by the ZPF, for they are nearly the same generally when measuring the vacuum energy.

Gibberish.

This is why the ZPF and the appearance of the CMB are the same fundemantally by the same mechanism

Simple nonsense.

Do you want to "ask an astrophysicist" something, or not? Why don't we just ask edd if everything I've said here is correct?