Quantum Field Theory's Howler
in [Physics]
|
Prev: E-mails raise legitimate questions
Next: Slow-light; whether it supports a nonexistant doppler effect on Light Chapt 8 #146; ATOM TOTALITY
From: G. L. Bradford on 8 Jun 2010 14:41 "Sam Wormley" <swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:xYidnRQPLeXU8ZPRnZ2dnUVZ_gOdnZ2d(a)mchsi.com... > > > What's the Energy Density of the Vacuum? > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/vacuum.html ==================== Like you he makes the Earth observer absolute in an absolute universe, absolute regarding space, time, mass, energy.... what have you. Every word, every value, is expressed from an unspoken but obvious premise of an absolute picture rather than a picture limited to, a universe limited to, 'relative to the Earth and the Earthly observer'. And it is a 2-dimensional single-sided photo-universe you deal in, not any universe beyond the immediate photo-entity, thus a Universe of universes ever so slightly, to ever so vastly, beyond its narrow 1-dimensional string of states. I don't think he even realizes he is talking an absolute universe, talking a universe the whole of it observable and absolute to the Earth and Earth observer, rather a strictly relative universe missing vast amounts of information. Personally, I agree with those who in their ever growing numbers think you have only-too-arrogantly gone way, way, beyond your bounds and should be dropped from funding by the rest of us. GLB ===================
From: eric gisse on 8 Jun 2010 18:58 Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > On Jun 8, 11:07 am, Uncle Al and eric gaakk wrote: > > Would either of you two geniuses like to discuss the physics of this > thread or is your expertise limited to trivialities and ad hominem > banter? As soon as you stop talking about the obvious as if it were a deep insight. The problem of the vacuum energy predicted by QFT not matching observation by 100 orders of magnitude is rather well known. Unfortunately your 'solution' is just your usual spew of numerology. Just because you bought yourself amherst email space doesn't make you a scholar. Stop looking for respect here. You'll never find it. Try making a blog where you can post in peace and quiet if the responses here bother you.
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 8 Jun 2010 23:00 On Jun 8, 2:41 pm, "G. L. Bradford" <glbra...(a)insightbb.com> wrote: > "Sam Wormley" <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > ------------------------------------ I am still waiting for an evidence-based scientific argument rather than arm-waving subjective opinion, although with diminishing expectations.
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 9 Jun 2010 12:03 On Jun 8, 11:00 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" > > I am still waiting for an evidence-based scientific argument rather > than arm-waving subjective opinion, although with diminishing > expectations. ----------------------------------------- Here's a simple challenge for you. (1) What is my candidate for the root cause of the VED crisis? (2) When you study my proposed resolution, what specific arguments do you disagree with? The link in the first post of this thread provides you with the resources needed to answer these questions. Good luck!
From: Thomas Heger on 11 Jun 2010 08:38
Robert L. Oldershaw schrieb: > Does anybody know why QFT predicts a vacuum energy density that is > wrong by > 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000? > Give or take a few zeros. > > Here's why, and, better yet, here's a way to resolve this horrendous > howler. > > http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0901/0901.3381.pdf > What exactly do they mean in QFT with the term 'energy'. Isn't energy something 'relative'. I mean, a stone in a gravitational potential has potential energy, relative to the gravitating object. Or electric charge is a usable potential, but only in respect to some ground level. What do they think about the usability of a piece of vacuum in the middle of nowhere? Is it a good idea, to ascribe any kind of fixed number to its 'energy content'? TH |