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

Newly revised paper on zero point energy and cosmological constant

  1. Oct 23, 2004 #1

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Here is a fellow who is working on the cosmological constant problem. He is working with the standard model and has taken a different approach than mine, but has arrived at a similar understanding of the ZPE fields. In empty space, the ZPE fields are self-moderating and non-gravitating, but in the presence of mass, they are perturbed and thus gravitate. I arrived at this intuitively and started modeling the mechanism by which the ZPE fields could be perturbed (polarized virtual particle/antiparticle pairs in my model). He arrived at this by trying to "fix" the ZPE fields' contribution to the cosmological constant that is at least 120 OOM too large in the standard model.

    http://xxx.arxiv.cornell.edu/abs/gr-qc/0405012
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 24, 2004 #2

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    I did not see anything in that paper that suggests the ZPE field does anything more than react to the presence of a gravity field. I do not find that very amazing. Trot your model out and make a prediction.
     
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2004
  4. Oct 24, 2004 #3

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    In my model, the ZPE EM field does not "react to the presence of a gravity field." It is the gravitational field. The ZPE field is polarized by the presence of matter due to a difference in the infall rate of particles vs antiparticles. In the absence of matter, the ZPE field is randomly oriented and does not gravitate, but exerts a slight pressure. In the presence of matter, the ZPE field becomes preferentially oriented and more dense and does gravitate. There is no need for dark matter, dark energy, gravitons, Higgs bosons, etc. The only entities needed to produce observed gravitational effects (lensing, cluster binding, etc) are matter and the ZPE field with which it interacts.

    Prediction: at some point, we will be able to collect and cool enough antiparticles to make usable quantities of molecular antimatter (antihydrogen would be the likely first choice). The gravitational infall rate of antihydrogen will be found to differ from the infall rate of hydrogen, thus breaking the equivalence of inertial mass and gravitational mass. This will demonstrate how the presence of matter causes the virtual pairs of the ZPE EM field to align, polarizing the field. My model is falsifiable by this experiment.

    You will note in the above paper that the author states that the ZPE field is neutral (self-cancelling to 120 OOM) in the absence of matter, but gravitates in the presence of matter. He arrived at this while trying to explain the disparity between the summed energies of the ZPE field and the tiny cosmological constant. I believe his result is essentially correct (as seen in the context of the Standard Model) but as yet incomplete. The fact that he arrived at this by an entirely different logical route than the one I took is encouraging.
     
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2004
  5. Oct 24, 2004 #4

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

     
  6. Oct 24, 2004 #5

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Thanks, Wolram! I don't think I'm ingenious, but I strive to be logical, conservative, and parsimonious, and my model reflects that.

    Those "pet hates" (and the myriad cosmological conditions that must be just so to prop up the standard Big Bang theory) are all problems. The standard procedure seems to be:
    1) measure the deviation of observation from SBB
    2) invoke a previously unknown force or material that will close the gap
    3) give it a snazzy name, like "dark energy".

    For some reason, many physicists will not permit SBB to be falsifiable by any discordant observation, and that is "faith", not science. When confronted by a discordant observation, the faithful simply crank out another constant or invent another unprovable entity or initial condition to make the discordant observation more palatable. I am very uncomfortable with that approach, and that is why I went back to the basic things that we know exist, and built a model that explains observations without invoking any outside entities.

    My model may be wrong, but Ockham's Razor is on my side, and the model is eminently falsifiable. If the infall rates of matter and antimatter are the same, then the equivalence of inertial and gravitational masses for matter and antimatter is unbroken, and my model fails. I am convinced that the infall rates are not equivalent, though, and that one simple fact will supply the mechanism by which the ZPE EM field is polarized and densified in the presence of matter. These polarized ZPE EM fields are the means by which gravity is expressed, not some mysterious force acting over a distance with as-yet undetectable mediating particles, or the GR curvature of space-time. These polarized ZPE EM fields also define the texture and apparent density of local space-time (in the GR sense) giving rise to the optical effects responsible for "gravitational" lensing (the optical properties of lensing media drew me to the ZPE fields in the first place).
     
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2004
  7. Oct 24, 2004 #6

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

  8. Oct 24, 2004 #7
    His paper mensions "extra degree of freedom in the trans-planckian scale", or words to that effect. So what would these extra degrees of freedom come from, would it be from the extended nature of particles, or perhaps from motion in the extra dimensions? So the zero cosmological constant prove string theory? Thanks.
     
  9. Oct 25, 2004 #8

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2004
  10. Oct 25, 2004 #9

    Garth

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    May I bring attention to the fact that these characterisitcs also apply to SCC!

    Garth
     
  11. Oct 25, 2004 #10

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I don't understand how the extra degrees of freedom apply to the measurement of the energy of the ZPE field. We can measure differences in energy, and we can measure energy relative to what we perceive to be a ground state. Now, the energy of the ZPE field may indeed be enormous, but if it is truly the ground state in our Universe and it is all-pervasive, how do we establish an absolute no-energy (zero) baseline against which to measure it? Perhaps the 120 OOM disparity between the summed energies of the ZPE fields in quantum theory and the cosmological constant arises at least in part from the assumption by QFT mathemeticians that a true zero-energy baseline exists, when in fact it cannot. I haven't spent much time on this aspect of the cosmological constant problem, so please jump in to point out any faulty logic.
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2004
  12. Oct 25, 2004 #11

    Garth

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Is this not where the fault line between GR and Quantum theory reveals itself? In QT energy differences are measured, whereas in GR energy, having a mass equivalent, causes curvature and can therefore be quantified in any observer's frame of reference.
    The QT ground state would require a preferred foliation of GR space-time. Mach's Principle anybody?
    - Garth
     
  13. Oct 25, 2004 #12

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Yes, this is the interesting intersection being probed by the loop quantum gravity folks, the string folks, etc, which is what drew me to model a practical mechanism for gravitation, instead of simply accepting gravitation as GR space-time curvature (which is another way of saying the effects are this, and I can mathematically model them so, without getting my hands dirty). Space-time curvature is a neat way of modeling the effects of gravation, but it does not explain the mechanics of gravitation, and it falls far short of explaining the effects that we see on galactic and galactic-cluster scales.

    To get back to Mach's principle. As I understand it, his principle states that there is no preferred local reference frame, and that inertia can be expressed only in relation to other bodies occupying the universe (both local and VERY distant, although he had no idea how distant the background bodies would be in the present day.) I probably summarized this poorly, but I have a hard time with that holistic approach in which inertia can be conferred by acceleration as measured against the backdrop of the entire universe. Please feel free to point out my misconceptions, if necessary. I've only been working on this model for about 6 months, and haven't properly explored its relation to the important works of Mach, Poincare, and many others.

    In my model, gravitation and inertia are not strictly equivalent (the equivalence is broken by infall-rate differentials for matter vs antimatter), but they are local, and they are expressed by interaction with local ZPE fields. This avoids FTL effects implied by Mach's relativistic approach, and it introduces an "aether" through which electromagnetic waves can propagate.
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2004
  14. Oct 25, 2004 #13
    If the ultraviolet trans-planckian degrees of freedom exist everywhere, then we are probably talking about something inherent to spacetime itself. Does this prove a micro structure to spacetime?
     
  15. Oct 26, 2004 #14

    Garth

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    To fully include Mach's Principle in GR would seem to require a Brans Dicke -type manifestly covariant scalar field. The gravitational constant G would also seem to necessarily dependent (because of the equivalence principle) on the distribution of matter in motion in the entire universe i.e. on its density and pressure. - Or perhaps is it that the cosmic density and pressure are dependent on the gravitational constant?
    (BTW In SCC such a scalar field has a major influence on gravitational theory and cosmological evolution and G is a function of cosmological density and pressure.)
    - Garth
     
  16. Oct 27, 2004 #15

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

  17. Oct 28, 2004 #16

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Yes, it can explain frame dragging. The virtual particle pairs of the ZPE field orient preferentially in the presence of large masses like planets. Rotation of such a mass introduces a shear in the field (the field self-gravitates when polarized). The ZPE field is space-time, as envisioned in relativistic models, but it is also an EM aether. I haven't modelled the behavior of the ZPE field very well yet in the case of galactic rotation (flat rotation curves in spiral arms), but I expect that it will explain MOND effects without non-baryonic DM.
     
  18. Oct 28, 2004 #17

    Garth

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    turbo-1 - Interesting ideas but a bit 'hand waving', any mathematics to back up the ideas with solid predictions?

    Garth
     
  19. Oct 28, 2004 #18

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    My math skills are not up to the task, but fortunately the model is eminently falsifiable. The mechanism by which the ZPE EM field is polarized is a difference in the gravitational infall rates for matter vs antimatter. The Athena project should be able to produce enough antihydrogen to test that.

    Many people working in quantum gravity have speculated that somehow the strict equivalenct of inertial mass and gravitational mass will have to be broken somehow before quantum theory and GR can be reconciled. In my model the inertial masses of matter and antimatter are equivalent, but the gravitational masses are not. Here is where the equivalence is broken. If this is indeed proven to be the case by the Athena project, I won't have to come up with a mathematical description of my model, because some very smart physicists will do that for me. They can dispense with non-baryonic dark matter, and begin modelling cluster lensing, weak lensing, cluster binding, galactic rotations, etc in light of the gravitational effects of the polarized ZPE field. There will be pain and consternation, because modeling space-time in terms of the ground-state of the quantum vacuum will have serious implications for relativistic cosmology.
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2004
  20. Oct 28, 2004 #19

    Garth

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I wait with anticipation - BTW SCC also breaks the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass in its Jordan frame.
    Garth
     
  21. Oct 28, 2004 #20

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    What is the mechanism by which it is broken in SCC? Is there a physical, process or is a mathematical artifact resulting from your selection of reference frames?
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2004
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Newly revised paper on zero point energy and cosmological constant
  1. Zero Point Energy (Replies: 0)

Loading...