Newly revised paper on zero point energy and cosmological constant

[turbo]

Can I just clarify that what I am picking up from this thread is correct?
So ZPE is the natural state of Energy conservation?
When it is violated by a random quantum fluctuation that creates a pair of particles they must immediately annihilate to restore equilibrium.

I'll try to address these one at a time. Zero Point Energy is the ground state of the vacuum, as expressed in Quantum field theory. There is a tremendous amount of absolute energy in the field, but since we can only measure energy differentials in the real world, it is difficult for us to even detect. The particle pairs of the ZPE Electromagnetic Field arise spontaneously even in a vacuum at absolute zero, but must annihilate within limits set by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. This field is everywhere, and there is no true vacuum. If we could create a true vacuum and exploit the energy difference between that and the ZPE field, we would have unlimited energy on tap. There is no practical means of creating such a vacuum, and probably will never be, despite the numerous breathless pronouncements of anti-gravity drives and free energy being right around the corner.

Simply put then Gravity has or is a negative energy created by the ZPE field to cancel the positive energy of matter in order to preserve equilibrium?

Gravity is the result of interaction between massive objects and a ZPE EM field that has been polarized by the presence of matter, due to the differential in matter/antimatter infall rates. Simply put, antimatter is more strongly attracted to matter that matter is to matter, so the ZPE field aligns accordingly. In the absence of matter, ZPE field is neutral and the field is randomly oriented and does not gravitate.

So ZPE must be a fundamental part of matter otherwise there would be no attraction?

The ZPE field is the ground state of vacuum in our universe. It is everywhere and it polarizes in the presence of matter. It is the interaction between masses and the polarized ZPE fields in which they are embedded that cause the attractive effect we call gravity.

Someday, I'll take the time to pull in all my notes and references and put together a page that explains this model in detail.

 

[Mike2]

Gravity is the result of interaction between massive objects and a ZPE EM field that has been polarized by the presence of matter, due to the differential in matter/antimatter infall rates. Simply put, antimatter is more strongly attracted to matter that matter is to matter, so the ZPE field aligns accordingly. In the absence of matter, the matter/antimatter ratio of the ZPE field is neutral and the field is randomly oriented and does not gravitate.

If the ZPE is everywhere in space accept where matter exists, then what you are saying is that matter is the absense of space. Perhaps if spacetime is the QM superposition of different geometries of various genus, then maybe matter (if it is the absense of space) is where the various holes of various genus combine on occasion to produce the absence of space.

 

[Chronos]

As I said in an earlier (much earlier) thread, it can provide a mechanism for removing anti-matter from our observable universe and promoting new matter from "virtual" to real status on a continuous basis.

I think you might have trouble using this effect to explain the matter/antimatter ratio we see today if your model constrains the age of the universe to just 13.7Gy, as the Standard Big Bang model does. Of course, you are aware of my arguments against the validity of SBB, since it has been falsified by observations over and over again, only to be patched up like Frankenstein to live another day (little Halloween reference ).

Thanks turbo, I wasn't sure I caught your drift and wanted to make sure I understood before proceeding. A steady state universe much older than 13.7 Gy appears to be required by your model. A BB model would fall flat on its face. A matter v antimatter dominated universe emerges long before the first black hole could possibly have formed under current theory.

Setting that aside, current theory constrains the maximum difference between the infall rate of matter v antimatter in a gravitational field to 0.04%. Assuming that constraint applies, what is the minimum time required [under your model] for the universe to match current observational evidence?

I am tempted to ask what observations have falsified SBB over and over again, but that can wait. I do request the right to cross examine.

 

[turbo]

Setting that aside, current theory constrains the maximum difference between the infall rate of matter v antimatter in a gravitational field to 0.04%. Assuming that constraint applies, what is the minimum time required [under your model] for the universe to match current observational evidence?

I'm going to have to put more time into this one, but I'll be back. (not like Aahnold!)

I am tempted to ask what observations have falsified SBB over and over again, but that can wait. I do request the right to cross examine.

No need to wait. Suppose that I can develop a consistent, mathematically logical model of gravitation in polarized ZPE fields, and that it perfectly predicts solar system dynamics, precession, etc, and it perfectly predicts the refraction of star images at the sun's limb.

Now, imagine that when I apply my model to glalactic clusters, it predicts lensing far stronger that is currently observed. My model of gravitation is immediately falsified. It is a good local approximation, but it is not predictive on very large scales.

Now, imagine that I use my gravitational theory to model to the binding forces in clusters, and it predicts a binding force that is so strong that many observed clusters should coalesced under its strength long ago, forming huge multi-thousand galactic-mass black holes. My model is again flalsified. Again, it's a good local approximation for simple systems of spherical bodies, but it is not predictive with huge massive clusters. Back to the drawing board!

Shall I continue? I have more examples. The gravitational model of GR has failed in just these ways (with opposite signs, of course). It has been falsified by conflicts with many observations. This curved space-time model of gravity is a critical underpinning of SBB, so SBB adherents have invented exotic undectectable forms of matter, that has to be distributed "just so" to fix each conflict with astronomical observations. The curved space-time mathematical model of gravity in GR is a really good approximation on solar-system scales, but it is not predictive on much larger scales and is therefore NOT general or universal. Until we come up with a truly general theory of gravitation that follows the same rules everywhere, cosmology is in trouble.

Again, Chronos, if my polarized ZPE model of gravitation failed to properly predict even one of these: 1)cluster binding forces, 2)cluster lensing, 3)galactic rotation curves; you would immediately declare it falsified. I doubt you would allow me to come up with imaginary forces and matter to "fix" the problems.

 

[wolram]

I'm patiently waiting. Garth is waiting for the results of Gravity Probe B, as well - for some reason, no incremental results will be released, only final (2-year) results.

As every one is on tenter hooks waiting for some discovery of" gravity waves",
i find it strange that any results from this experiment will not be reported until
its conclusion, maybe it is because so much depends on these results, and
breathing space is needed to come up with a reason for a null result.

 

[Garth]

As every one is on tenter hooks waiting for some discovery of" gravity waves",
i find it strange that any results from this experiment will not be reported until
its conclusion, maybe it is because so much depends on these results, and
breathing space is needed to come up with a reason for a null result.

The Gravity Probe B satellite that was being referred to does not detect gravity waves but the effects of curvature caused by a spinning mass (the Earth).

Indeed 'so much does depend on these results', and that is why they are being very careful to do the experiment objectively.

It tracks the precession of four most accurate gyroscopes against a guide star. That star is also moving against the night sky with its own proper motion. There is another team accurately tracking the star and the two sets of data have to be compared.

Rather than the two teams possibly colluding to produce an expected result, it has been decided to keep the two sets of data entirely separate until they both have been assessed as accurate and only then will they be brought together. The final result will be known in early 2006.

Garth

 

[wolram]

The Gravity Probe B satellite that was being referred to does not detect gravity waves but the effects of curvature caused by a spinning mass (the Earth).
Please forgive me garth, but i imagine this as one and the same thing,
space time is a mathematical model of our universe that scientists are trying
to give some mechanical properties to, elasticity or rigidity, i have yet to
see an explanation of how this works, strings, loop quantum, only go to
the fringes of an explanation.

 

[turbo]

The Gravity Probe B satellite that was being referred to does not detect gravity waves but the effects of curvature caused by a spinning mass (the Earth).
Please forgive me garth, but i imagine this as one and the same thing,
space time is a mathematical model of our universe that scientists are trying
to give some mechanical properties to, elasticity or rigidity, i have yet to
see an explanation of how this works, strings, loop quantum, only go to
the fringes of an explanation.

That is the crux of the gravity problem. The curved space-time of GR is an ad-hoc mathematical model that is quite predictive on solar-system scales. It falls apart on galactic scales and larger, though, where MOND has proven to be very predictive.

Neither of these ad-hoc mathematical models yields much insight into the mechanics of gravitation, although there is much to be learned from the comparison of GR and MOND. First of all, the DM needed to patch GR has to be applied in special ways to reconcile GR with observations of galactic rotation curves. In MOND, only the distribution of luminous materials in the observed galaxies need be considered, and the curves fall into place. This tells us that MOND is the more accurate model on galactic scales, and that the mechanical process by which gravitation and inertia are expressed on galactic scales is simple and universal.

This is why I started modeling gravitation as the interaction of mass with polarized ZPE fields. We know massive bodies exist, and we know that quantum ZPE fields exist. I believe that a difference in gravitational infall rate between matter and antimatter will provide the polarizing mechanism needed for the ZPE fields to exist at energies considerably above ground state, and interact gravitationally with matter and with itself. One key concept - I think the quantum theorists need to stop expressing the energy density of the ZPE field as an "absolute" number compared to a true vacuum (which cannot exist in our universe). This leads to ridiculously high energy densities. To reconcile quantum theory with GR, we will have to express the energy of the ZPE fields in relation to our universe's ground state, which would be vacuum in a relaxed frame, unperturbed by mass, at zero degrees Kelvin.

 

[Chronos]

That is the crux of the gravity problem. The curved space-time of GR is an ad-hoc mathematical model that is quite predictive on solar-system scales. It falls apart on galactic scales and larger, though, where MOND has proven to be very predictive.

GR is an ad-hoc mathematical model? Going out on a limb is one thing, going out on a twig is another. Your reluctance to buy into a standard, or concordant model is acknowledged. Asserting GR is an ad-hoc mathematical model is not only outrageous [in my opinion], it is a reckless disregard for empirical evidence and a slap in the face to real scientists [i.e., those who have made the personal sacrifices and effort required to gather facts and make informed, rational conclusions]. Apologies for being blunt.

 

[turbo]

GR is an ad-hoc mathematical model? Going out on a limb is one thing, going out on a twig is another. Your reluctance to buy into a standard, or concordant model is acknowledged. Asserting GR is an ad-hoc mathematical model is not only outrageous [in my opinion], it is a reckless disregard for empirical evidence and a slap in the face to real scientists [i.e., those who have made the personal sacrifices and effort required to gather facts and make informed, rational conclusions]. Apologies for being blunt.

No need to apologize. It is not my intent to hurt your feelings, nor the feelings of anybody who subscribes to the "curved space-time" model of gravitation in GR. I do not use the term "ad-hoc" as a perjorative. I use it because the model does not explain how gravitation arises. Instead of explaining the mechanics of gravitation, Einstein modeled its behavior - there is nothing wrong with that, as long as we do not elevate his mathematical model to the status of "reality". Curved space-time is a mathematical model that works well in some circumstances. MOND is a mathematical model that seems to be a lot more predictive on galactic scales and larger. Neither model explains the mechanics of gravitation - they only model the effects of gravitation.

Why should we want to know the mechanics of gravitation? Discovering the mechanics of gravitation is essential, if gravitation is going to be united with the other fundamental forces of nature. I repeat, GR's curved space-time and Milgrom's MOND are mathematical models that predict the effects of gravitation - they do not address the cause of gravitation.

I do not have a "reckless disregard for empirical evidence", nor is my investigation into the mechanics of gravitation a "slap in the face to real scientists" (emphasis mine). There are real scientists all over the world who support themselves in other jobs, and who may nevertheless make real contributions. In fact, observational astronomy is one of the most democratic of the sciences, and amateurs routinely make discoveries that are valuable to real scientists (yes, emphasis mine). For my part, I try to sort through the various interpretations of observational evidence to determine where the problems lie that make the unification of GR and quantum theory difficult. That might not seem like much of a contribution to you, but it is interesting and compelling work.

If we are at a point where any particular theory cannot be questioned or subjected to falsification, then science is dead. I do not believe that this is the case, although in some instances, science may be on life-support. We have to be especially careful about what you refer to as "empirical evidence", since all observations are filtered though our perceptions and prejudices. When a statement is prefaced by "obviously" or "as everybody knows", the warning flags should go up. We are only human after all, and despite our advances, we are no more objective and open-minded as a group than the peers of Kepler, Newton, and Einstein.

 

[Garth]

Curved space-time is a mathematical model that works well in some circumstances. MOND is a mathematical model that seems to be a lot more predictive on galactic scales and larger. Neither model explains the mechanics of gravitation - they only model the effects of gravitation.

The interesting point is that some conceive of space-time curvature as actually existing in some Platonic sense, they are called idealists, others that it is only a conceptual model that makes accurate predictions, they are called instrumentalists.

An idealist does not require a mechanism of gravitation, it is all explained by geometry, there is no mechanism because there is no gravitational force, no graviton or whatever.

Aninstrumentalist requires various forms of mechanism and often wanting to see gravitation alongside the other three fundamental forces conceives of a graviton to mediate the force.

Until such gravitons are experimentally verified you can take your choice.

Garth

 

[turbo]

The interesting point is that some conceive of space-time curvature as actually existing in some Platonic sense, they are called idealists, others that it is only a conceptual model that makes accurate predictions, they are called instrumentalists.

An idealist does not require a mechanism of gravitation, it is all explained by geometry, there is no mechanism because there is no gravitational force, no graviton or whatever.

Aninstrumentalist requires various forms of mechanism and often wanting to see gravitation alongside the other three fundamental forces conceives of a graviton to mediate the force.

Until such gravitons are experimentally verified you can take your choice.

Garth

Einstein had this to say regarding the dangers of blindly elevating useful concepts to the status of "commonly accepted knowledge". He was not just an intelligent man, he was a very wise man.

"How does it happen that a properly endowed natural scientist comes to concern himself with epistemology? Is there no more valuable work in his specialty? I hear many of my colleagues saying, and I sense it from many more, that they feel this way. I cannot share this sentiment. ... Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such an authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens. Thus they come to be stamped as 'necessities of thought,' 'a priori givens,' etc. The path of scientific advance is often made impassable for a long time through such errors. For that reason, it is by no means an idle game if we become practiced in analyzing the long common place concepts and exhibiting those circumstances upon which their justification and usefulness depend, how they have grown up, individually, out of the givens of experience. By this means, their all-too-great authority will be broken."

The good doctor would have had little patience for those who enshrine his work and refuse to re-examine it and falsify it in light of new knowledge.