Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Dark Energy Casimir Energy in the Large? (Mazur/Mottola)

  1. May 21, 2004 #1


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    "Vacuum fluctuations and the Casimir effect are considered in a cosmological setting. It is suggested that the dark energy, which recent observations suggest makes up 73% of our universe, is vacuum energy due to a causal boundary effect at the cosmological horizon."

    A poster on SPR named Chris Weed has recommended
    http://arxiv.org/gr-qc/0405111 [Broken]
    Dark Energy and Condensate Stars: Casimir Energy in the Large
    Pawel O. Mazur, Emil Mottola

    the above quote is from their abstract

    Weed's post:
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. May 21, 2004 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    I think the gist of what they are saying is that the dark energy density
    instead of being proportional to the Planck energy density

    (which for laziness I'll write E/L3
    writing L for planck length and E for planck energy)

    instead of being comparable to that, which it hugely is not,
    it should be proportional to the same thing but with the Hubble radius R
    swapped in squarely



    I should go upstairs and get my calculator and at least check these numbers. The story is that Pauli calculated E/L3 and on the assumption that vacuum rho (cosmological constant) should be comparable to that exclaimed that at that rate the size of the universe "would not even reach to the moon". the Planck density is wrong by over 120 orders of magnitude. OK now Mazur/Mottola offer reasons that it should be compared instead to E/LR2

    whoah. we dont even need a calculator for that! the Hubble radius is in fact around 1060 Planck lengths
    so the square of the Hubble radius is around 10120 times the Planck area

    so swapping in R2 for L2, as they tentatively justify,
    would have the right magnitude effect
  4. May 21, 2004 #3

    I just wanted to add this link that Ranyart had offered, in the ole superstringtheory. You can delete if it seems inappropriate to your topic. The ideas here of vacua and casimere, are features of this discussion?

    Read this link, R.B Laughlin worked with E mottola at the LAN Xar storage site(which as now moved)from Los Alamos to..well another site! This paper was/is given as part of a up and coming lecture.

    I will comment on the 'critical surface catastrophe's' (remember Ulf's paper on creating Labtop BH'S) and there is another paper which needs further investigation, it belongs to Joao Magueijo and Rachel Bean, very interesting for reverse Entropy!

    Earlier posts I have found on these boards:

    http://www.superstringtheory.com/forum/bhboard/messages5/129.html [Broken]

    http://www.superstringtheory.com/forum/bhboard/messages6/66.html [Broken] (surface tension)

    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0302/0302028.pdf [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  5. May 21, 2004 #4


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    we could use more pointed comment on the M/M paper specifics
    from others besides myself and Sol
    does this idea of theirs have substance and plausibility?
    their earlier idea, in 2001, of "condensate star" did not seem
    to win much acceptance (or am I wrong?)

    meanwhile let us do a bit of the nittygritty detail on this

    I seem to recall that the "Hubble time" is around 13.7 billion years
    what is that in Planck?
    this is a key ratio to understanding their approach

    what is a year, in Planck time units, then we just have to multiply
    by 13.7 billion

    well I checked in the fundamental constants website for the latest Planck time value and it turns out that a year is 5.8535E50 planck
    So 13.7 billion yr, if that is right for the hubble time, is 8.02E60 planck.

    one may say that the hubble time we observe at present is 8E60
    so this is the ratio between the hubble length and the planck length,
    which plays a part in M/M paper.

    by replacing the planck area L2
    by the hubble area, in that formula, they cut the energy density down
    by a factor of 64E120

    that is the desired 122 orders of magnitude, more or less

    it seems to me likely that other people who have been asking why the cosmological constant is what it is may also have made similar conjectures and calculations----I would not suppose M/M are the first----but I dont know of anyone offhand.

    IMO one ought to see if the M/M reasoning holds water, the result is intriguing and not to dismiss without giving it a try. can anyone comment
  6. May 21, 2004 #5


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    found what i think may be a slight blemish in M/M paper
    but it doesnt seem to affect validity
    just a confusion in wording----at some points they seem to me to confuse
    the hubble radius with the radius of the observable universe
    or the distance to the cosmological horizon

    these things are not the same but are related by order-one factors
    so it should not make any essential difference
  7. May 21, 2004 #6
    I do not want to detract from what you are saying here but to try and give some idea here in the actions we might see of the vacuum energy. Again if it seems out of character, please delete it .


    The Bosenova experiment also illustrates another important cosmological process, structure formation during a rapid quench. Galaxies were formed very late in the history of the universe, even later than the COBE or WMAP detectable eras. But their seeds came from quantum fluctuations of the scalar field which drove the universe into inflationary expansion at a very early time, $10^{-35}$ seconds from the Big Bang for a grand-unification (GUT) epoch phase transition. It is easy to see that an inflationary expansion is the time-reverse of a rapid quench in the BEC collapse. But how exactly does a primordial quantum seed grow into today's massive galaxies?


    Both Ranyart and I, have engaged in these questions before, about the dynamics involved. This was part of the development of the understanding of Heisenberg's Collapsing sphere. These dynamics were the attempts to metaphorically visualize this action, and the realization of what could be emitted from such a collpase, as in the Bosenova. Negative energy in the jets.

    This lead to the developing understanding of geometrodynamics.

    I will leave this for now. Let me know if there is any substance in continuing here.
  8. May 21, 2004 #7
    Sol you are so right, I sent an e-mail to authors 99', and along with some other work I gave the Handwaving long ago at Stringtheory.com. Most of my (what I class important posts!), have mysterious dissapeared from the boards ;) but the important thing is that they were there and read for some time.

    My accuracy in the relevant 'New' physics has so far been 100%, and not a single equation in sight :redface: :rolleyes:

    The current paper linked by Marcus is quite ok, I have read it over a few times, but my posting times are limited for now, so comments will have to wait, but for you, remember the "Graviton Shroud" :approve:
  9. May 21, 2004 #8
    I think Marcus's calculation reveal something very important.

    If we are to think of the nature of the univserse as it is, the calculation in terms of expansion are very revealing in terms of the matter constitutions we find through consolidation. Our universe.

    Andrey Kravtsov's demonstrations in terms of numerical relativity are also very helpful in understanding the way in which we could have viewed this supersymmetrical state of existance, as a measure of the gravity field (supersymmetric metric points of consideration to today's value as considerations from strong to weak( today) as a revised expression of planck length times that 13.7 billion years?
  10. May 21, 2004 #9
    as to the post up top, I removed one link becuase there was no url to connect it too, so it gave a blank page of superstringtheory.

    As to the shroud, if people do understand the significance of the dimensional relevance of "Time," in Marcus's calculations, then we might see the nature of all things in a different way?

    Why I constantly refer to the gravity probe B, and a way(?) in which to measure these dynamics of the Bosenova :smile:

    The key idea of Theodore Kaluza in the 1920s was to write down a five dimensional theory of gravity. In five dimensions, the gravitational field has 15 independent numbers, which can be arranged in a five dimensional array (see fig.4). Kaluza then re-defined the 5th column and row of the gravitation al field to be the electromagnetic field of Maxwell. The truly miraculous feature of this construction is that the five dimensional theory of gravity reduces down precisely to Einstein's original theory of gravity plus Maxwell's theory of light. In other words, by adding the fifth dimension, we have trivially unified light with gravity. In other words, light is now viewed as vibrations in the fifth dimension. In five dimensions, there is “enough room” to unify both gravity and light.

    http://www.mkaku.org/articles/hyper_sci_odyssey.shtml [Broken]

    If Gravity and electromagnetism are joined as per Kaluza and Klein, then this perspective needs to be looked at more closely. I am currently looking for the equations that would have moved GR to another stage. Also the calculation that would have demonstrated, the ideas around the standard model leaving the brane, as the graviton?
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  11. May 22, 2004 #10
    Gravitational Lensing

    I am not sure if this should continue or not, as I hate to move such generalizations forward if there is no use in looking at it?

    The dimensional significance, of recognizing "Time," as a value of dynamical movement, how would we not see then that such effects as stated here in this topic, might help us to see the nature of curvature being applied in mass considerations.

    But truy what is the deflection flight also telling us if we are faced with a gravitational well? I am open to others thoughts here.

    http://www.iam.ubc.ca/~newbury/lenses/src/rays.gif [Broken]

    Another parameter that may come out of a successfully inverted lens in the Hubble constant which encodes the age and size of the universe. It can be determined, in theory, by measuring two quantities: the angular separation between two images, and the time delay between these images. This time delay is an interesting quantity: Assuming there is some variability in the source, this signal travels down two different geodesics (see the figure below.) There are two contributions to the time delay: the first is the obvious delay due to the difference in path length between the two rays. The second is a General Relativistic effect, the Shapiro time-delay, that causes a change in the rate that clocks tick as they pass through a gravitational field. Because the two rays travel through different parts of the potential well created by the deflector, the clocks carrying the source's signal will emerge out of sync.

    http://www.iam.ubc.ca/~newbury/lenses/research.html [Broken]

    http://wc0.worldcrossing.com/WebX?14@207.bZafbgvi4W4.28@.1dde770c/2 [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  12. May 22, 2004 #11
    The casimir effect is calculated for two plates that have the same kind of spacetime
    in the gap between them and on the outside of their surfaces.Is it reasonable to swap R for L when there are different kinds of spacetime on either side of the boundary at the horizon? Surely the authors should show that these spacetimes are equivalent in this case.
  13. May 22, 2004 #12

    This has been one of the reasons that I have been advocating 'Spacetime' only exists in and around Galaxies, the Space between Galaxies does not have a 3-D 'Spacetime', its 2-D Volume's.

    All paramiters of Time extend only along 3-D space, our perception of '3-D' inside our Galaxy is based on us looking up and outwards, and expect all of Spacetime to be extended to our observational horizon, line of sight. From this we gauge the Quantum world from the bottom up, we have to look inwards to find Micro-quantities, so it is natural that we assume the outside Universe to be of Macro-Time Quantites.

    The Space between Galaxies is actually a 2-D Field, just how this is Guaged to the Micro Quantum Field(sub-structure) that exists within a 3-D Spacetime of our Galaxy is where I see the problem. The Casimir plates are Man's nearest Dimensional Experimentation that produces the inter-dimensional exchange where an internal 2-D field is 'squeezed' out and around two fundemental 3-D locations (plates), this experiment is taking place within a 'Spacetime'.

    For Galaxies the 'squeezing' is percieved as a contracting force of 2-d Fields around Galaxies (grip-halo), think of a sponge holding water, water exists within sponge. Put a dimensional reduced field around it and it naturally contracts, squeezing the water out onto the sponge surface.

    From within the sponge the water is expanding away in all directions, and the structure of the sponge is Contracting.

    One has to be careful with overtly speculative simplistic systems, just as one needs to treat with caution the overertly speculative complex systems such as string and brane theories, :smile:

    Ok back to the casimir plate effect, the experimentors and detectors are within a 3-D space, they see the acclelerated light (Blue-Shifted) eminating from within the plates, now if you understand GR and SR you would know that observer dependence is based on the speed of light, but what you may not Understand is that this is based on a 3+1 spacetime frame, which means that the limit of the speed of light is constrained by the dimension it travels across, and for observers it is very important where one looks from!

    One can define the scientific rigourous verification of SOL as being dimensionally bound to a 3+1 frame of reference, even a Vacuum Chamber sits within a Macro Spacetime, its here on Earth?.. experimentors pull out all 3-Dimensional Matter until there is nothing left inside, this produces fluctuations in the Vacuum, because we pull from one direction only, from a 3+1 spacetime-frame.

    Light of Casimir Plates could be seen as blue-shifted because it has Decelerated from a 2-D field, and consequently 'gauged' as faster-than-light into a 3-D spacetime enviroment, or event-frame.
  14. May 23, 2004 #13
    One has to be careful with overtly speculative simplistic systems, just as one needs to treat with caution the overertly speculative complex systems such as string and brane theories,

    I guess I should ask a straight forward question then. :smile: Can we compare the action of the Casimere plates to the branes scenario's How would you see the brane develope into the views spoken too, in linked paragraph?


    a) Compactifying a 3-D universe with two space dimensions and one time dimension. This is a simplification of the 5-D space*time considered by Theodor Kaluza and Oskar Klein. (b) The Lorentz symmetry of the large dimension is broken by the compactification and all that remains is 2-D space plus the U(1) symmetry represented by the arrow. (c) On large scales we see only a 2-D universe (one space plus one time dimension) with the "internal" U(1) symmetry of electromagnetism.

    If you let the image load, I get the sense of what you are saying in terms of blueshifting, and finally as brane collids and galaxies form in redshifting. In terms of the vacuum, I am having trouble here seeing the condensive feature of matter distinctions in those galaxies appart from the expansion of the whole universe. Yet we know galaxies form at http://universe.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/lifecycles/cycles.jpg [Broken]? So how would 2d outside of those galaxies cause the realization and effect inside.

    The example given of Bosenova seems to describe on the surface events of collapse, yet on another level, we see where such expresssions are geometrical developing in another direction? Here we would see the effect of negative energy, in a negative curvature parameter being expressed from(spherical), from collapse as well, to another event in the jets. Can you modify these expressions in 2D ( might need your explanation very distinctively here)?

    ds2 = (cdt)2 - dl2

    The move to boson production off the brane understood in leading to rotations?
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  15. May 23, 2004 #14
    Just wanted to add this link for consideration.

    http://www.lerc.nasa.gov/WWW/PAO/images/warp/warp31.gif [Broken]

    Zero Point Energy (ZPE), or vacuum fluctuation energy are terms used to describe the random electromagnetic oscillations that are left in a vacuum after all other energy has been removed. If you remove all the energy from a space, take out all the matter, all the heat, all the light... everything -- you will find that there is still some energy left. One way to explain this is from the uncertainty principle from quantum physics that implies that it is impossible to have an absolutely zero energy condition.

    http://www.lerc.nasa.gov/WWW/PAO/html/warp/possible.htm [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  16. May 23, 2004 #15
    Sol, you remember the Quark Frequenies post?:http://wc0.worldcrossing.com/WebX?14@170.TjoubVFK5NR.1@.1dde81d1 [Broken]

    if one see's this: http://www.sukidog.com/jpierre/strings/hawkrad.gif

    and (ROTATE'S 90% left).. can you the see the comparison ?

    Now the Weak Equivilence Principle produces two quantities in and around a finite volume/area, 'quark-frequency-model? :smile: '

    If I spelt it out in really basic terms I would have to state that Quarks as Protons are made into the smallest confined 3-D space's, surrounded by the 2-D Electron [spin-configuration=Rotations!..remember the Ruler Principle for Quarks?], an Atom is REALLY a chunk of 3-D matter(proton) surrounded by a 2-D energy field (electron), which produces the answer as to:WHY DONT ELECTRONS(NEGATIVE) FALL INTO THE PROTON(POSITIVE)?

    Let me ask you this Sol, is there any correlation between the Electron and Quark?..the early models of QM's, they gave the Quark and Electron the same relevence for charge identity?..now is the Free Electron on a Par with Free Quarks? :biggrin: ..do Electrons originate (they have to have a history, they came from somewhere!) outwards from Protons?

    Bossa Nova?..or was it Graviton Shroud? :smile:

    The intersection of Kaluza-Klein 3-D space and 2-D fields...=5th dimension..the 5th dimension is not a singular dimension..it is a tale of two Connecting/colliding Space's..3 PLUS 2 :approve:
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  17. May 24, 2004 #16


    User Avatar

    Probably too much wine

    Hmm,once I had peculiar thought crossed my mind.That there's is yet undiscovered force,"the fifth" fundamental force in nature,acting nonlineary on huge distances.Not a gravity itself,but the bridge between quantum gravity and Einstein classical GR and theories of grand unification.
    Responsible for nearly zero cosmological constant observed and some other vacuum energy and cosmological discrepancies.But,I doubt there's sense in postulating such force (after all,the thought occured during one wine session 10 years back)
  18. May 24, 2004 #17


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    this can happen, especially with wines of the Adriatic
    like those they make at places along the Dalmatian coast

    people enjoying pleasure cruises down the Eastern Adriatic drink
    the local vintage and often get fundamental new ideas about cosmology
  19. May 24, 2004 #18


    User Avatar

    I didn't think at all.The foolish thought just occured by itself.
    There's is also the legend about Dirac's thought of "experimentaly measurable" gravitational constant changes and Moon.But it's another story.

    cheers :wink:
  20. May 24, 2004 #19


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Tev I am curious about the coordinates 43N 16E.
    On my map it looks like Vis the island off the Dalmatian coast in the Adriatic. But your profile is you are getting a physics PhD.
    I didnt know of any university on Vis (old name Issa)
    and I am wondering is my map wrong?
    or are these coordinates mistaken?

    if you really are at 43N 16E it must be very beautiful
    this is where all the German and Austrian tourists like to
    ride on cruise ships.

    Probably, you know, there IS a fifth force
    god enjoyed making the first four so much that he could not stop
    How could he resist making just one more-----something subtle and
    barely noticeable, he would be thinking it would be OK with us
    and no trouble really.

    But I hope you get your PhD first before you think too much more about it.
  21. May 24, 2004 #20
    Aw yes, thanks for the correction. :smile:

    Maybe Marcus and TEV will see what is being said here, in the postulation of this http://wc0.worldcrossing.com/WebX?14@107.NFUHbbsH57g.15@.1dde4189/0 [Broken] :smile:
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook