Newly revised paper on zero point energy and cosmological constant

[turbo]

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

 

[Chronos]

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.

 

[turbo]

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.

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.

 

[wolram]

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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No dark energy, no higgs boson, no gravitons, no dark matter," excellent",
All the above are pet hates of mine, and to be able to get rid of them in one
fell swoop is ingenious.

 

[turbo]

No dark energy, no higgs boson, no gravitons, no dark matter," excellent",
All the above are pet hates of mine, and to be able to get rid of them in one
fell swoop is ingenious.

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).

 

[Chronos]

Production of anti-hydrogen is in the works. Should be interesting. See
http://athena.web.cern.ch/athena/
for latest news.

 

[Mike2]

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.

 

[turbo]

Production of anti-hydrogen is in the works. Should be interesting. See
http://athena.web.cern.ch/athena/
for latest news.

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.

 

[Garth]

No dark energy, no higgs boson, no gravitons, no dark matter," excellent",
All the above are pet hates of mine, and to be able to get rid of them in one
fell swoop is ingenious.

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

Garth

 

[turbo]

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.

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 into point out any faulty logic.

 

[Garth]

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

 

[turbo]

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

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.

 

[Mike2]

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.

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?

 

[Garth]

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

 

[wolram]

Turbo-1
can this theory explain Frame dragging, as reported at-- http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle...storyID=6575621
I imagine it can and if results Mach it would be another
feather in your cap.

 

[turbo]

Turbo-1
can this theory explain Frame dragging, as reported at-- http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle...storyID=6575621
I imagine it can and if results Mach it would be another
feather in your cap.

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 modeled 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.

 

[Garth]

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

Garth

 

[turbo]

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

Garth

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.

 

[Garth]

I wait with anticipation - BTW SCC also breaks the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass in its Jordan frame.
Garth

 

[turbo]

I wait with anticipation - BTW SCC also breaks the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass in its Jordan frame.
Garth

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?

 

[Chronos]

In my model, the ZPE EM field does not "react to the presence of a gravity field." It is the gravitational field.

I still have some questions. I thought it might become clearer as the thread progressed, but it has not. I infer you mean the ZPE field, as opposed to matter, is the source of gravity. That appears to infer gravity is repulsive, as opposed to attractive. In other words, it is a 'push' gravity model.

The ZPE field is polarized by the presence of matter due to a difference in the infall rate of particles vs antiparticles.

I have no idea how polarization of the ZPE field [or any other field] has anything to do with gravity. Nor do I understand how the infall rate of matter vs antimatter has any bearing on this polarization phenomenon, or consequences you intuitively derived. Garth's objections are appropriate, mathematically supported and consistent with the scientific method.

 

[Garth]

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?

There are two conformal frames in SCC.
The Einstein frame is in vacuo canonical GR in which the presence of a Brans Dicke type scalar field 'in the background' results in a linearly expanding, "freely coasting" universe. In this frame energy-momentum, not energy, is generally conserved and inertial and gravitational masses are equivalent.

However in the Jordan frame the BD scalar field comes into its own and interacts with particle trajectories as well as perturbing space-time curvature, energy is locally conserved:
m(r) = m₀exp[Phi(r)],
where Phi(r) is the dimensionless Newtonian potential at r, and G also varies so:
G(r) = G_Nexp[-Phi(r)] where G_N is the normal Newtonian gravitational constant measured in Cavendish type experiments, so G(r)m(r) is constant.
The gravitational force acting on a freely falling test particle, measured in the centre of mass frame of reference of the gravitating mass works out to be:
m₀d2r/dt2 = - m(r) [G_NM/r^2],
so we we see that m₀ is inertial mass and m(r) is gravitational mass.
Garth

 

[Blueplanetbob]

Most of you will have probably found this site but if anybody has missed it http://www.seaspower.com/InsideZeroPoint-Valone.htm

 

[Garth]

Most of you will have probably found this site

Interesting site, it seems nearly everything can be explained by ZPE!
One problem with it is, if

"Not only is it big but its energy is estimated to exceed nuclear energy densities, so even a small piece of it is worth its weight in gold."

then how come experimental verification has revolved around only the tiniest of forces, the Casimir force, and no one has been able to extract any noticeable energy out of it?
Although the Casimir force ~d^-4 does tend to infinity as d tends to zero the separations are so small that only a tiny amount of energy can actually be extracted, and once the plates have collapsed together it will require the same amount of energy to prise them apart. IOW it is a 'use once only' source of power.
Having said that I find ZPE quite useful from a cosmological point of view in SCC, and indeed perhaps in standard cosmology as dark energy so I don't want to be too dismissive!
But turbo-1

In my model, the ZPE EM field ... 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.

Is there not a "chicken and egg" problem, which comes first, ZPE polarisation or gravitational infall?

Garth

 

[turbo]

I still have some questions. I thought it might become clearer as the thread progressed, but it has not. I infer you mean the ZPE field, as opposed to matter, is the source of gravity. That appears to infer gravity is repulsive, as opposed to attractive. In other words, it is a 'push' gravity model.

No, polarized ZPE fields are attractive. The ZPE field is randomly oriented and neutral in the absence of mass. In the presence of mass, it becomes polarized, and attractive. It gravitates. The ZPE field is not strictly "the source of gravity" - gravity the the result of interaction between a massive object and the polarized ZPE field surrounding it.

I have no idea how polarization of the ZPE field [or any other field] has anything to do with gravity. Nor do I understand how the infall rate of matter vs antimatter has any bearing on this polarization phenomenon, or consequences you intuitively derived. Garth's objections are appropriate, mathematically supported and consistent with the scientific method.

The EM ZPE field is made up of particle pairs - each pair consists of a particle and an antiparticle. For the pairs to be oriented to create a polarized field, there must be a mechanism by which they are oriented. The obvious mechanism is a difference in gravitational infall rates between matter and antimatter. The inertial masses of each particle and its antiparticle are equivalent, but their gravitational masses are not equivalent. I expect the difference to be small, but measurable.

 

[turbo]

Interesting site, it seems nearly everything can be explained by ZPE!

There are a lot of sites that are quite off-the wall, claiming that we are on the verge of antigravity, free energy, etc. They seem to forget the fact that we are presently capable of exploiting energy differentials, and since ZPE is the ground state of the quantum vacuum, it's tough to generate a diferential in it.

One problem with it is, if then how come experimental verification has revolved around only the tiniest of forces, the Casimir force, and no one has been able to extract any noticeable energy out of it?
Although the Casimir force ~d^-4 does tend to infinity as d tends to zero the separations are so small that only a tiny amount of energy can actually be extracted, and once the plates have collapsed together it will require the same amount of energy to prise them apart. IOW it is a 'use once only' source of power.
Having said that I find ZPE quite useful from a cosmological point of view in SCC, and indeed perhaps in standard cosmology as dark energy so I don't want to be too dismissive!

You are correct. Few people understand that the small gap between the plates of a Casimir device restrict the formation of some portion of the ZPE field and therefore produce an area that is just a bit under the normal ZPE ground state, so the measured Casimir forces are quite small. The ZPE field contains tremendous amounts of energy, but unless someone can find a way to generate a field that is considerably lower in energy than the ZPE ground state, extracting usable amounts of energy from the field is impossible.

But turbo-1

Is there not a "chicken and egg" problem, which comes first, ZPE polarisation or gravitational infall?

Garth

In my model, the antiparticles in each ZPE virtual pair are attracted more strongly to nearby matter than are their particle counterparts. This attraction causes the difference in gravitational infall rates. The inertial masses of particles and antiparticles are perfectly equivalent, but the gravitational masses differ due to this attraction.

As a crude analogy, envision the field as a tabletop full of weak bar magnets, randomly oriented. Now introduce a powerful N monopole into the middle of them, and what happens? The magnets near the monopole guickly swing into alignment (S poles toward the N monopole) and pack toward the monopole. Magnets farther out will also align and pack in more tightly as they are faced with a uniformly-oriented wall of N poles from their neighbors closer to the monopole. The strong attraction of antiparticles of the ZPE field will cause antiparticles to align closer to the large mass than their particle counterparts. The neighboring pairs (farther from the large mass), faced with a wall of particles, will also orient with their antiparticles oriented toward the mass. This is how matter densifies and polarizes the ZPE field.

Garth, I understand that in SCC the equivalence of inertial mass and gravitational mass is broken. Is the equivalence broken equally for both matter and antimatter, or can your model make that distinction? Does it even need to?

 

[Garth]

turbo-1 - Imagine a sea of pairs of virtual particles in empty space. There is no gravitational field, no ‘infalling'. Place a mass in the middle. How does the gravitational field develop? According to your theory with no infalling there is no field, and with no field there is no infalling, so which comes first, the chicken or the egg?

In SCC there is no difference between the way matter and antimatter interact with the gravitational field, as their only difference is the sign of the charges they carry.

Garth

 

[turbo]

In SCC there is no difference between the way matter and antimatter interact with the gravitational field, as their only difference is the sign of the charges they carry.

Garth

Thank you. In that case, if the Athena project shows no differential in the gravitational infall rates between matter and antimatter, my model is falsified, and SCC gains a point. That is the heart of the scientific method. Every model should be falsifiable by observation.

turbo-1 - Imagine a sea of pairs of virtual particles in empty space. There is no gravitational field, no ‘infalling'. Place a mass in the middle. How does the gravitational field develop? According to your theory with no infalling there is no field, and with no field there is no infalling, so which comes first, the chicken or the egg?

As for the mechanics, in my model the ZPE field polarizes because the "antimatter" antiparticle of each ZPE virtual pair is more strongly attracted to the large mass of matter than the matter particle. That is the only mechanism required to polarize the ZPE field. There is no chicken or egg dichotomy. There is no "gravitational field" required to effect the infall rates of matter vs antimatter. The infall differential is mediated by the attraction of matter to antimatter, and it polarizes the ZPE EM field with no other mechanism required. Gravitation is what happens when masses interact with the polarized ZPE fields surrounding them and their massive neighbors. The "gravitational field" cannot exist in a pure vacuum surrounding a mass - gravitation is the effect of mass interacting with the quantum ZPE EM field surrounding it and cannot exist independently of the ZPE field.

1) GR offers a complicated mathematical model for "curvature of space-time" to explain gravity, with no physical explanation for the mechanics that cause that curvature.

2) Quantum theory posits the existence of the ZPE field at over 120 OOM higher energies than can be explained by observation.

3) My model unites GR and QT at a very basic level. ZPE is the ground-state energy level of our universe and is practically undetectable unless the ZPE field is polarized by the presence of mass.

 

[Garth]

As for the mechanics, in my model the ZPE field polarizes because the "antimatter" antiparticle of each ZPE virtual pair is more strongly attracted to the large mass of matter than the matter particle.

So then my question is why is antimatter attracted more strongly? Are not masses generally charge neutral?

Garth

 

[turbo]

So then my question is why is antimatter attracted more strongly? Are not masses generally charge neutral?

Garth

That has never been proven, and has been the subject of some conjecture for a number of years. Here is an overview.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/antimatterFall.html

There have been attempts to detect an infall rate differential, but when charged particles are used, any gravitational effect can easily be swamped by any variability in the much more powerful EM field. The Athena project will collect and cool antiparticles and use them to form atomic antimatter (making and containing usable amounts of antihydrogen is their current goal). Antihydrogen is electrically neutral, so gravitational effects should be more easily detected.

http://athena.web.cern.ch/athena

I should add that the question about antimatter vs matter infall rates has typically been posed in such a way as to allow the infall rate of antimatter to be either faster or slower than that of matter, if it differs at all. I believe that it is faster because in my model, this orientation of the ZPE EM field allows antiparticles to be captured by black holes at a higher rate than their accompanying particles, allowing the black hole radiation to promote more particles than antiparticles from "virtual" to "real" status, producing an excess of matter over antimatter.