Quantum Fluctuations/Foam

[swansont]

14 minutes ago, interested said:

Are you trying to direct me at pop science articles and nutter theories  Here is one on zero point gravity, https://ac.els-cdn.com/S1875389212025151/1-s2.0-S1875389212025151-main.pdf?_tid=812b323f-a638-488b-abcf-91330c231328&acdnat=1524830042_8a8c50cb625d28ffb9f850780edd1e08 .

Also apparently energy is available free from the vacuum and its a government conspiracy why we havent found it yet, WOW.  

Nothing Strange wrote is directing towards crap like this.  

[Strange]

11 minutes ago, interested said:

Are you trying to direct me at pop science articles and nutter theories  

It was the wiki thread you posted that indicates it is infinite, but didnt show how it came to that conclusion.  

No. But it does seem that "zero point energy" attracts a large number of crackpots. The Wikipedia page seems to have a very dodgy edit history, so I wouldn't like to vouch for its credibility at any point in time (maybe there is some sort of uncertainty principle attached to the quality of information on Wikipedia pages).

It looks pretty messed up on the issue of whether the energy is infinite or not. At one point it says that renormalisation makes it finite. Then in other places it continues to suggest it is infinite.

This looks like a slightly better article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state

Basically, the energy of the vacuum is non-zero. One way of thinking of this is that there is some inherent quantum uncertainty/variation in the energy level. It can't go below zero so the average must be above zero. (Probably not strictly accurate, but gives you an idea, maybe.)

Quote

Here is one on zero point gravity, https://ac.els-cdn.com/S1875389212025151/1-s2.0-S1875389212025151-main.pdf?_tid=812b323f-a638-488b-abcf-91330c231328&acdnat=1524830042_8a8c50cb625d28ffb9f850780edd1e08 .

Also apparently energy is available free from the vacuum and its a government conspiracy why we havent found it yet, WOW.  

Yep. Both of those are pretty bogus.

[interested]

14 minutes ago, swansont said:

Nothing Strange wrote is directing towards crap like this.  

It must be my warped sense of humor  when faced with bizarre ideas it is easy to take the piss.

 

16 minutes ago, Strange said:

(maybe there is some sort of uncertainty principle attached to the quality of information on Wikipedia pages).

It looks pretty messed up on the issue of whether the energy is infinite or not. At one point it says that renormalisation makes it finite. Then in other places it continues to suggest it is infinite.

This looks like a slightly better article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state

Basically, the energy of the vacuum is non-zero. One way of thinking of this is that there is some inherent quantum uncertainty/variation in the energy level. It can't go below zero so the average must be above zero. (Probably not strictly accurate, but gives you an idea, maybe.)

I think you could be correct, I often feel uncertain after reading several wiki pages especially when mixed up with pop science

Thanks for the clarification and additional link.

 

 

[StringJunky]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

As interaction exchange particles are virtual, I would disagree that they have no effect on matter. Quite the opposite.

isn't  their effect collective rather than individual, except when they pair to form proper or quantized particles?

Edited April 27, 2018 by StringJunky

[swansont]

11 hours ago, StringJunky said:

isn't  their effect collective rather than individual, 

Yes. But I don't see how this matters.

[StringJunky]

9 minutes ago, swansont said:

Yes. But I don't see how this matters.

A particle of the standard model has the ability to act whereas  a virtual particle does not.This was the distinction I was trying to make. Whether it matters or not is neither here nor there. He described them as quanta having energy.  They are not individually quanta. Are they?

Edited April 28, 2018 by StringJunky

[interested]

On 4/27/2018 at 11:04 PM, StringJunky said:

A particle of the standard model has the ability to act whereas  a virtual particle does not.This was the distinction I was trying to make. Whether it matters or not is neither here nor there. He described them as quanta having energy.  They are not individually quanta. Are they?

Are they,?

Quantum excitations are part of the standard model, Quantum fluctuations are also virtual particles are they quanta. Virtual particles are force carriers used to explain the magnetic field, quantum fluctuations in space are not ascribed any forces except maybe gravity and dark energy. 

The theoretical graviton is a boson, is it a virtual particle?

Does something like Hawking radiation generate real or virtual particles?. 

[Strange]

49 minutes ago, interested said:

The theoretical graviton is a boson, is it a virtual particle?

The question makes no sense.

It would a real particle if it was a real particle. It would be a virtual particle when it was a virtual particle. Just like photons or electrons or anything else.

50 minutes ago, interested said:

Does something like Hawking radiation generate real or virtual particles?. 

Real particles. Obviously. (It wouldn't be radiation, otherwise).

[interested]

On 5/1/2018 at 10:59 AM, Strange said:

The question makes no sense.

It would a real particle if it was a real particle. It would be a virtual particle when it was a virtual particle. Just like photons or electrons or anything else.

Real particles. Obviously. (It wouldn't be radiation, otherwise).

Thanks for that, the questions were not formed well.

What I was thinking about was a possible parallel between Hawking radiation from a black hole, and the Quantum fluctuations appearing in space, and maybe dark matter, along with the cosmological constant and dark energy. 

As was pointed out by some one on this forum the theoretical vacuum energy is 10 ^120 times bigger than that required for the cosmological constant or dark energy,  either the sums are wrong or something is being missed,

What would be the effect of something like a plank sized BH singularity?. Would such a thing have to exist in space time dimension?.  Could it radiate quantum fluctuations in space?

  

Edited May 3, 2018 by interested

[Strange]

43 minutes ago, interested said:

What would be the effect of something like a plank sized BH singularity?. Would such a thing have to exist in space time dimension?.  Could it radiate quantum fluctuations in space?

It would weigh a few micrograms, be about as bright as all the stars in the universe put together and disappear in a tiny fraction of a second.

Edited May 3, 2018 by Strange

[interested]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

It would weigh a few micrograms, be about as bright as all the stars in the universe put together and disappear in a tiny fraction of a second.

Where did you get that answer from do you have a link ?

I guess we might not see it if it were a singularity in normal space time    Would a very short burst of light brighter than all the stars in the universe microwave everything

If it was connected to all points in space as an undefined dimension could it just appear as quantum fluctuations  or as dark matter maybe? Could it absorb the excess of zero point energy around to help explain Dark Energy in terms of zero point energy could it allow non local space time interactions

I guess also when I google these questions I will no doubt find some pop science answers to confuse things.

 

[Strange]

10 minutes ago, interested said:

Where did you get that answer from do you have a link ?

The arithmetic is pretty simple, but there is a handy online calculator here: http://xaonon.dyndns.org/hawking/

You can plug a value into any field and it will calculate everything else.

12 minutes ago, interested said:

Would a very short burst of light brighter than all the stars in the universe microwave everything

Because it would be so brief, the total energy output would be about 100 kilotons of TNT (quite a big bomb) - based on the mass and e=mc².

 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, interested said:

 If it was connected to all points in space as an undefined dimension could it just appear as quantum fluctuations  or as dark matter maybe? Could it absorb the excess of zero point energy around to help explain Dark Energy in terms of zero point energy could it allow non local space time interactions

Absorb excess zero-point energy? What is that supposed to even mean?

And please stop with the leading questions, i.e. "Could X be true" when it's well-established that science doesn't have the answer. It means science doesn't have the answer.

[interested]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Absorb excess zero-point energy? What is that supposed to even mean?

And please stop with the leading questions, i.e. "Could X be true" when it's well-established that science doesn't have the answer. It means science doesn't have the answer.

The calculated zero point energy is far in excess of that required to explain the cosmological constant and dark energy.

I do not know science has not got the answer when I ask a question. In general all my questions have been answered on the forum.  Often I am seeking clarification that what I am thinking is correct, and as you and others have pointed out on many cases I am often wrong. 

Thanks for your patience

Edited May 3, 2018 by interested

[swansont]

19 minutes ago, interested said:

The calculated zero point energy is far in excess of that required to explain the cosmological constant and dark energy.

That is true.

One or both are incorrect. You appear to be assuming they are both correct, and invoking some sort of magic to make things work. A reasonable question would be to ask if we know, or at least have hints of, which one is correct, or some other question about how we reconcile the discrepancy. A WAG about it, even phrased as a question, does not count as a reasonable response.  

Quote

I do not know science has not got the answer when I ask a question. In general all my questions have been answered on the forum.  Often I am seeking clarification that what I am thinking is correct, and as you and others have pointed out on many cases I am often wrong. 

You keep asking about the same things, over and over, so you should know what answers have been given to you. This thread started asking about quantum fluctuations, but you have used that as a springboard to speculate on dark matter, dark energy and gravity. And without having any science to back up your speculations, meaning it's not in keeping with our rules about speculations discussions. And this is not the first time you have been reminded of this.

 

[Strange]

23 minutes ago, swansont said:

You keep asking about the same things, over and over, so you should know what answers have been given to you.

As an example, the first time I provided information about "zero point energy", you [interested, not swansont] said "wow, thats amazing I have never heard of that before". When I provided the same link a couple of weeks later your reaction was almost identical. This is slightly odd.

[interested]

On 5/3/2018 at 10:56 AM, swansont said:

That is true.

One or both are incorrect. You appear to be assuming they are both correct, and invoking some sort of magic to make things work. A reasonable question would be to ask if we know, or at least have hints of, which one is correct, or some other question about how we reconcile the discrepancy. A WAG about it, even phrased as a question, does not count as a reasonable response.  

As a starting point for discussion or amusement 

Could dark energy be due to a white hole resulting from a black hole existing in the past. 

Furthermore could an additional long range force not affected by distance but weaker than gravity be the cause of the apparent dark matter and the universe not accelerating too fast due to zero point energy. ie additional long range force energy - zero point energy = cosmological expansion rate .

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, interested said:

Could dark energy be due to a white hole resulting from a black hole existing in the past. 

As far as we an tell, dark energy is the same everywhere. If there were some sort of source of dark energy like this, then we would expect the acceleration of expansion to be greater in some directions than others.

7 minutes ago, interested said:

Furthermore could an additional long range force not affected by distance but weaker than gravity be the cause of the apparent dark matter and the universe not accelerating too fast due to zero point energy. ie additional long range force energy - zero point energy = cosmological expansion rate .

All sorts of things could be. But without evidence for this extra force it is moot. The attempts to model dark matter by modifying gravity or invoking extra forces haven't worked so far.

[interested]

38 minutes ago, Strange said:

then we would expect the acceleration of expansion to be greater in some directions than others.

The hubble constant is only approximately constant indicating expansion is greater in some directions, also it changes over time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble's_law#Observed_values_of_the_Hubble_constant

 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, interested said:

 Could dark energy be due to a white hole resulting from a black hole existing in the past.

 

Questions of this nature are probably best addressed by asking if anyone is investigating (or has investigated) such a possibility. That removes the hint of it being a speculation that might have to be defended. The best way to find out is probably a search of arXiv.

1 hour ago, interested said:

 Furthermore could an additional long range force not affected by distance but weaker than gravity be the cause of the apparent dark matter and the universe not accelerating too fast due to zero point energy. ie additional long range force energy - zero point energy = cosmological expansion rate .

People have looked for a "fifth force" or gravity modification and there has not been evidence of it at long ranges that properly fit the data. 

[Strange]

2 hours ago, interested said:

The hubble constant is only approximately constant indicating expansion is greater in some directions, also it changes over time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble's_law#Observed_values_of_the_Hubble_constant

Nothing there suggests it is “only approximately constant” or that it varies with direction. (But it does change over time)

[Mordred]

6 hours ago, Strange said:

 (But it does change over time)

 +1

Edited May 8, 2018 by Mordred

[interested]

On 5/8/2018 at 2:14 PM, swansont said:

Questions of this nature are probably best addressed by asking if anyone is investigating (or has investigated) such a possibility. That removes the hint of it being a speculation that might have to be defended. The best way to find out is probably a search of arXiv.

People have looked for a "fifth force" or gravity modification and there has not been evidence of it at long ranges that properly fit the data. 

After a bit of googling I found this informative answer on another site. 

"

The Big Bang may not be different at all from a white hole.

It is true, as it is often pointed out, that a white hole singularity is a location in space, whereas the Big Bang is a moment in time. However, this distinction is valid only for observers who are outside the white hole’s event horizon. To those inside the event horizon, the singularity is, in fact, a “naked” singularity in time, in the past. And this observer would in fact experience a universe that appears to be governed by the same Friedmann equations that describe the homogeneous, isotropic Big Bang cosmology.

There is still another difference. Whereas inside the white hole event horizon, all world lines originate at the singularity, outside the event horizon there are world lines that have different origins or (depending on the nature of the surrounding universe) may have existed forever. In contrast, in a Big Bang universe, only those worldlines that originate at the singularity exist; there is no “outside”.

But observationally, at least at present, we don’t seem to have the means to distinguish the two. So it is conceivable that our Big Bang universe is, in fact, the interior of a white hole event horizon in a larger universe.

"

 

[Mordred]

Might be a good idea to include the site link, many sites are rather poor or misleading. At one-time some cosmologist did look into the white hole possibility yet those models started to lose interest when the WMAP data was published. Poplowskii once went this route with using spin and torsion under Einstein Cartan tbeory.

Edited May 12, 2018 by Mordred

[swansont]

Plus copyright/plagiarism rules demand it.