is zpe = dark energy = higgs ocean = Goldstone Phase

[S Claus]

Hi all

(apologies for cross-posting)

I wanted to ask what is (according to current understanding) the
relationship between:
1. Zero Point Energy
2. Dark Energy
3. Higgs Ocean
and
4. the Goldstone Phase

Also, if "mass" is caused by particles moving through the Higgs Ocean
(as stated here: http://www.p-i-a.com/Magazine/Issue10/Physics_10.htm),
how is gravitation created? Is gravitation also created by the Higgs
Ocean or by some effect caused by it? If the latter, how would you
explain the working mechanism of that effect?

(sorry I am just a curious layman)

Thanks in advance

[Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply]

In article <gjtdqj$7sr$1@fb07-hees.theo.physik.uni-giessen.de>, S Claus
<santa@temporaryinbox.com> writes:

> Hi all
>
> (apologies for cross-posting)
>
> I wanted to ask what is (according to current understanding) the
> relationship between:
> 1. Zero Point Energy
> 2. Dark Energy

I'll take these two. Dark energy I'll call by its conventional name
"cosmological constant". It is essentially a uniform negative pressure
(hence if one wants a sexy name, "smooth tension" is much better).
Zero-point energy can have the same effect. Are the two the same? Some
folks assume that that is the case. Others think there is something
wrong with the zero-point energy idea (after all, if basic calculations
predict something several orders of magnitude above observational
limits, maybe the whole idea is wrong). Weinberg thinks there is a
"raw" NEGATIVE cosmological constant which ALMOST offsets the zero-point
stuff, resulting in a small cosmological constant. Suffice it to say
that no-one can calculate the observed value of the cosmological
constant from zero-point energy from basic principles.

[dlzc]

Dear S Claus:

On Jan 5, 9:51*am, S Claus <sa...@temporaryinbox.com> wrote:
> Hi all
>
> (apologies for cross-posting)
>
> I wanted to ask what is (according to current understanding)
> the relationship between:
> 1. Zero Point Energy
> 2. Dark Energy
> 3. Higgs Ocean
> and
> 4. the Goldstone Phase

None of them correlate to each other, nor is 2 derived from a quantum
theory.

> Also, if "mass" is caused by particles moving through
> the Higgs Ocean (as stated here:
http://www.p-i-a.com/Magazine/Issue10/Physics_10.htm),
> how is gravitation created?

We don't know. They are proposed models. You are asking like we have
access to Reality, to Truth. All we have are "model and test" to get
the feel of Nature and how she is.

> Is gravitation also created by the Higgs
> Ocean or by some effect caused by it?

No quantum gravitation model exists yet. No answer possible.

> If the latter, how would you
> explain the working mechanism of that effect?
>
> (sorry I am just a curious layman)

Good thoughts and good questions, just too hard to answer in the
context you seem to allow.

David A. Smith

[Richard D. Saam]

Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply wrote:
> In article <gjtdqj$7sr$1@fb07-hees.theo.physik.uni-giessen.de>, S Claus
> <santa@temporaryinbox.com> writes:
>
>> Hi all
>>
>> (apologies for cross-posting)
>>
>> I wanted to ask what is (according to current understanding) the
>> relationship between:
>> 1. Zero Point Energy
>> 2. Dark Energy
>
> I'll take these two. Dark energy I'll call by its conventional name
> "cosmological constant". It is essentially a uniform negative pressure
> (hence if one wants a sexy name, "smooth tension" is much better).
> Zero-point energy can have the same effect. Are the two the same? Some
> folks assume that that is the case. Others think there is something
> wrong with the zero-point energy idea (after all, if basic calculations
> predict something several orders of magnitude above observational
> limits, maybe the whole idea is wrong). Weinberg thinks there is a
> "raw" NEGATIVE cosmological constant which ALMOST offsets the zero-point
> stuff, resulting in a small cosmological constant. Suffice it to say
> that no-one can calculate the observed value of the cosmological
> constant from zero-point energy from basic principles.

The cosmological constant can be related to zero-point energy from basic
principles.

The inhibiting characteristic of the zero point energy(zpe) is that it
has a contribution of zpe = hb*omega/2 from every point in space,
resulting in a calculation of infinite zero-point energy which is not
observed.

But what if there were a geometry or lattice (virtual or real) which
constrained the zero-point energy to a limited value range?

In the context of the universe, this constraint would have to be tied to
some universal homogeneous or isotropic quantity such as the Hubble
constant(H) or cosmological constant(LAMBDA) which are both related to
the universe critical mass density:

critical mass density (rho) ~H^2 /G and ~ c^2 lambda /G

LAMBDA = 1.29E-56 /cm^2
H = 2.31E-18 /sec
G = 6.67E-8 cm^3 /g /sec^2
hb = 1.05E-27 g cm^2 /sec

then the universe critical mass density (rho) ~6E-30 g/cm^3
This density encompasses baryonic and nonbaryonic mass (what is seen and
unseen)

The cosmological constant is alternatively expressed in the
dimensionless number (OMEGA) (WMAP - Spergel et al astro-ph/0811.4280v1)

OMEGA = LAMBDA*c^2 / H^2 ~ .7

So ~70% of the universe exists as this 'dark energy' or 'smooth tension'
potentially described in a geometrical 'lattice' form.

These relationships do not indicate how the mass is distributed. Is the
mass in chunks or dispersed in micro-particles or associated with some
type of "smooth tension"?

The luminoua baryonic objects in the paper astro-ph/0711.3180 represent
~5% of the universe and are not a candidate.

CMBR mass density (based on its black body character) of ~4E-34 g/cm^3
eliminates it as a candidate. This calculation would indicate that the
observed WMAP acoustic CMBR rippled signature at Big Bang + 380,000
years is not representative of the total universe characterization then
or now.

Is Weinberg mass a candidate for contributing to universe critical
density?

Ref:Weinberg S. Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology, John Wiley and
Sons, New York, (1972).

Weinberg mass = (hb^2 * H / (G * c))^(1/3)

In 1972, H was not known to its present value which defines a Weinberg
mass a little greater than electron mass.

Perhaps the Weinberg scale relationship is more fundamental than the
Planck scale in that it incorporates the universe expansion in terms of
the Hubble constant(H).

Although definitely not considered 'solid' the principles as outlined in
Charles Kittel's standard textbook:

Introduction to Solid State Physics, Seventh Edition, John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., New York, N.Y., 1996

may be applicable in defining the restricted or constrained energy and
momentum relationships at these Weinberg universe critical dimensions
within the concept of an extended lattice or array which is hypothesized
to be the primary component to the universe critical density.

In this context, Weinberg mass/cm^3 = critical mass density (rho) ~6E-30
g/cm^3 defines a constraining 'lattice' cell volume ~(2 cm)^3 or (x
cm)^3

The length dimension of x = 2 cm reflects Weinberg relationship
conformance to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP)

hb/2 = mt v x

where x = m^2 * G * c/(H * hb * v) ~ 2 cm

and v would be considered approximate to a de Broglie velocity v =
(hb/m)*pi/x

I have never seen a 'first principle' derivation of the Weinberg
relationship. Perhaps this 'Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle' approach
is an indicator?

The derived 'm' appears to have a quasiparticle character generated by
'lattice' coordinated vacuum fluctuations in the context of the
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

At present this 'lattice' or 'dark energy' is not electromagnetically
seen directly primarily because its characteristic frequency x/v is
extremely low at ~1E-5 /sec although indirect effects are anticipated:

1. Momentum transfer creating a Force(F) with transgressing bodies in
accordance with a Stokes law analogous mechanism (F x = m*c^2) where m/x
= object crossection*universe critical density (small objects affected
more than large objects) such observed with Pioneer 10 and 11
deceleration.
2. An ubiquitous universe characteristic energy generation
m*c^2 as a result of momentum transfer in mechanism 1 most probably ~56
Mev detectable by the Fermi satellite.
3. The described lattice would be
a candidate for the 'smooth tension' medium having the isotropic and
homogeneous character suitable for measuring acceleration and
deceleration of objects as per astro-ph/0711.3180.
4. The 'lattice'
characteristic frequencies may be observed as gravitational tidal
effects such as that observed from Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN) optical
power spectra.
5. Internal lattice pressure is observed as 'negative'
pressure accounting for universe expansion.

Within this concept, the lattice constrained zero point energy(zpe)
is extremely low:

zpe = hb * 1E-5 /sec = boltzmann * 1E-16 kelvin

This zpe temperature(1E-16 kelvin) is much lower than CMBR(2.7 kelvin)
but is indicative of the universe density ~10,000 times greater than
that represented by CMBR. This extremely cold temperature provides the
background for coexistence with correspondingly cold objects as
candidates for dark matter.

Dark Energy (~70%) + Dark Matter(~25%) + luminoua Baryonic matter(~5%)
= critical universe density(100%)

One 'dark matter' possibility would be the cold objects in the form of
adiabatically produced primordial Big Bang remnant baryonic
hydrogen/helium Bose Einstein Condensates(BEC's) that would be
gravitationally but not electromagnetically observed in their
distribution in and around galaxies expressing themselves by effecting
visually anomalous Keplerian galactic rotations.

All assuming as 3D space as per Igor:
> --3D space is defined as slices of of constant
> cosmological time, which measures the proper time counted from the Big
> Bang along world-lines of observers stationary with respect to the
> homogeneous matter-energy background--is observed to be approximately
> zero

Richard D. Saam

[N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)]

"Richard D. Saam" <rdsaam@att.net> wrote in message
news:3Da9l.265857$Mh5.254147@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply wrote:
>> In article
>> <gjtdqj$7sr$1@fb07-hees.theo.physik.uni-giessen.de>, S Claus
>> <santa@temporaryinbox.com> writes:
....
>>> I wanted to ask what is (according to current understanding)
>>> the
>>> relationship between:
>>> 1. Zero Point Energy
>>> 2. Dark Energy
>>
>> I'll take these two. Dark energy I'll call by its
>> conventional name "cosmological constant". It is
>> essentially a uniform negative pressure (hence if
>> one wants a sexy name, "smooth tension" is much
>> better). Zero-point energy can have the same effect.
>> Are the two the same? Some folks assume that
>> that is the case. Others think there is something
>> wrong with the zero-point energy idea (after all, if
>> basic calculations predict something several orders
>> of magnitude above observational limits, maybe the
>> whole idea is wrong). Weinberg thinks there is a
>> "raw" NEGATIVE cosmological constant which
>> ALMOST offsets the zero-point stuff, resulting in a
>> small cosmological constant. Suffice it to say
>> that no-one can calculate the observed value of the
>> cosmological constant from zero-point energy from
>> basic principles.
>
> The cosmological constant can be related to zero-point
> energy from basic principles.

Completely incorrect as I see it.

First, the cosmological constant in local systems is zero.
"Expansion" cannot be measured in gravitationally bound systems.
Second, "zero point energy" is based on the Casimir effect... an
*attractive force* for conductors, whereas Dark Energy /
cosmological constant is repulsive at large scales.

David A. Smith

[Richard D. Saam]

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
> "Richard D. Saam" <rdsaam@att.net> wrote in message
> news:3Da9l.265857$Mh5.254147@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <gjtdqj$7sr$1@fb07-hees.theo.physik.uni-giessen.de>, S Claus
>>> <santa@temporaryinbox.com> writes:
> ...
>>>> I wanted to ask what is (according to current understanding)
>>>> the
>>>> relationship between:
>>>> 1. Zero Point Energy
>>>> 2. Dark Energy
>>> I'll take these two. Dark energy I'll call by its
>>> conventional name "cosmological constant". It is
>>> essentially a uniform negative pressure (hence if
>>> one wants a sexy name, "smooth tension" is much
>>> better). Zero-point energy can have the same effect.
>>> Are the two the same? Some folks assume that
>>> that is the case. Others think there is something
>>> wrong with the zero-point energy idea (after all, if
>>> basic calculations predict something several orders
>>> of magnitude above observational limits, maybe the
>>> whole idea is wrong). Weinberg thinks there is a
>>> "raw" NEGATIVE cosmological constant which
>>> ALMOST offsets the zero-point stuff, resulting in a
>>> small cosmological constant. Suffice it to say
>>> that no-one can calculate the observed value of the
>>> cosmological constant from zero-point energy from
>>> basic principles.
>> The cosmological constant can be related to zero-point
>> energy from basic principles.
>
> Completely incorrect as I see it.
>
> First, the cosmological constant in local systems is zero.

I am trying to be conformance with generally accepted theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy
with appropriate reintroduction of light speed(c)
and gravitational constant(G)

and in particular address the problem:

"A major outstanding problem is that most quantum field theories predict
a huge cosmological constant from the energy of the quantum vacuum, more
than 100 orders of magnitude too large."

Term Definition:

LAMBDA = cosmological constant

critical mass density (rho) ~ H^2 /G
~ c^2 LAMBDA /G
~ 6E-30 g/cm3

LAMBDA = 1.29E-56 /cm2
H = 2.31E-18 /sec
G = 6.67E-8 cm3 /g /sec2
hb = 1.05E-27 g cm2 /sec
c = 3.00E10 cm/sec

The cosmological constant is alternatively expressed in the
dimensionless number (OMEGA) (WMAP - Spergel et al astro-ph/0811.4280v1)

OMEGA = LAMBDA*c^2 / H^2 ~ .7

> "Expansion" cannot be measured in gravitationally bound systems.
Unless there are mechanisms within the bound system
in addition to gravity.
> Second, "zero point energy" is based on the Casimir effect... an
> *attractive force* for conductors, whereas Dark Energy /
> cosmological constant is repulsive at large scales.

Zero point energy (hb*omega/2) is more general than the Casimir effect
Zero point energy is assumed to exist without the presence of any
intervening geometric forms resulting in the Casimir effect.
Casimir force has been observed to be repulsive.

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20090007203222data_trunc_sys.shtml

I would like to see a scientific analysis of geometric lattice forms
with appropriate properties
that result in repulsive, attractive or neutral forces.
Such a universal homogeneous lattice would be based on:

Weinberg mass(m)/x^3 = universe critical density

with 'm' = (hb2 * H / (G * c))^(1/3)
with 'x' the lattice cell dimension
in proximity to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle

hb/2 = m v x
v = de Broglie velocity hb/m * pi/x

which is the basis for the posted concept in attempting to explain local
expansion and large scale universe expansion acceleration as well as
dark matter.

I would like to know if there is something inherent to a lattice
composed of chiral cells in proximity to the Heisenberg uncertainty
principle that would impart an internal pressure to that lattice?

Richard D. Saam

[FrediFizzx]

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <dlzc1@cox.net> wrote in message
news:gkd56s$4r9$1@fb07-hees.theo.physik.uni-giessen.de...
> "Richard D. Saam" <rdsaam@att.net> wrote in message
> news:3Da9l.265857$Mh5.254147@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>

>> The cosmological constant can be related to zero-point
>> energy from basic principles.
>
> Completely incorrect as I see it.
>
> First, the cosmological constant in local systems is zero.
> "Expansion" cannot be measured in gravitationally bound systems.
> Second, "zero point energy" is based on the Casimir effect... an
> *attractive force* for conductors, whereas Dark Energy /
> cosmological constant is repulsive at large scales.

AFAIK, the Casimir effect is based on zpe not the other way around.
The concept of Zero Point Energy involving quantum systems goes way
back to Planck, Einstein and Stern in early quantum theory. Then
really reared it's "ugly head" in the quantum theories of the twenties
way before Casimir thought up his experiment. See Milonni's "The
Quantum Vacuum".

However, all quantum fields have zpe. It turns out in the math of
quantum theory that the bosonic fields have positive zpe and the
fermionic fields have negative zpe. Volovik thinks that they nearly
cancel each other out and we are left with the cosmological constant.
See Volovik's "The Universe in a Helium Droplet". Mystery solved?
Could the Higgs field (bosonic) be the difference that creates the
cosmological constant?

Best,

Fred Diether
Co-moderator sci.physics.foundations